Skip to main content

Oh look, there’s Colonel Mortimer, riding down the street on a dinosaur!

One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing
(1975)

(SPOILERS) There’s no getting round the dinosaur skeleton in the room here: yellow face. From the illustrious writer-director team who brought us Mary Poppins, no less. Disney’s cheerfully racist family movie belongs to a bygone era, but appreciating its merits doesn’t necessarily requires one to subscribe to the Bernard Manning school of ethnic sensitivity.


I’m not going to defend the choice, but, if you can get past that, and that may well be a big if, particularly Bernard Bresslaw’s Fan Choy (if anything’s an unwelcome reminder of the Carry Ons lesser qualities, it’s Bresslaw and Joan Sims) there’s much to enjoy. For starters, there’s two-time Best Supporting Actor Oscar winner Ustinov (as mastermind Hnup Wan), funny in whatever he does (and the only Poirot worth his salt), eternally berating his insubordinate subordinate Clive Revill (as Quon).


This is a movie where, even though its crude cultural stereotyping is writ large, the dialogue frequently shows awareness of the underlying prejudices the casting has taken advantage of (“All English look alike” observes Quan. “Those eyes, you can never tell what they’re thinking.” “Most times they think of nothing, that’s our problem” comments Wan). As part of this, the stuffy British sensibility and presumed superiority comes in for a frequent bashing (“You think our Chinese water torture is bad? Ever had an Englishman explain a game of cricket to you?”) as does the notion of the British Empire being built on something as civilised as tea: the stolen formula for tea (“Chinese were making tea when English were swinging by their tails from the trees”). Which isn’t to suggest “That makes it okay, then”, but Dinosaurs isn’t entirely oblivious.


Lord Southmere: Curious creatures, you know, nannies. You never know what they do on their day off.

The joke is also that Wan, or Panda Nose (“Characteristic occidental nonsense”), rather backward in his toilet training, has been ruined by an English upbringing, putting him on a par with Derek Nimmo’s Loud Southmere (who sets off the plot by stealing the formula for the Lotus X, escaping through Tibet with the help of a Yeti – “Thanks for the lift, old boy. I don’t think you’re abominable at all”– and hiding the formula on a dinosaur skeleton in the British Museum). Southmere, once captured, spends the entire film being hit on the head between protesting that he isn’t a spy. And he isn’t. He isn’t furthering cause of the British Empire; he’s an agent of capitalism, as he has actually stolen the recipe for Won Ton Soup (perhaps symbolically, the last we see of Wan, he too has become a slave of market forces, selling cans of soup for Southmere Soup and Savoury).


Superintendent Grubbs: Well, sir, taking it all in all, and as a result of the foregoing facts, I have reason to reach the following conclusions: A group of British nannies, numbering more than six, acting in concert with a group of aliens, numbering more than fifteen of oriental extraction, have conspired to pilfer the dinosaur.
Home Secretary: Orientals and nannies? Why on earth would they do that?
Superintendent Grubbs: Their motive, sir? That is precisely the subject of my next inquiry.

As such, it’s left to the womenfolk, or the nannies, those responsible for raising the ineffectual men, to sort things out. Helen Hayes is marvellously formidable and imperious as Hettie, and Joan Sims quickly rather irritating doing her distressed, highly strung act as Emily. 


Natasha Pyne’s enthusiastic novice Susan, meanwhile, is the unvaunted ace in the pack, stealing many of her scenes (“Oh this is so exciting. I feel absolutely biblical” of being in a British Museum whale, “chomping” a dinosaur’s mouth shut on a fellow nanny’s arm, punctuating incidents with “Isn’t this thrilling?” and, embarking on a train, “I wish I knew where we were going. Oh, I do hope it’s somewhere exciting”). They should have cast her in Nanny rather than bloody Wendy Craig.


Emily: Suppose the beast fell on top of us?
Hettie: Then we would be the first people in two million years to be killed by a dinosaur.

(Well, not according to official records, but maybe nannies know, you know.) Like many a ramshackle live action (and animated, come to that) Disney of this period, tight plotting and direction aren’t Dinosaurs’ strong suit, but that’s often made up for by the string of cameos en route. There’s Roy Kinnear as a Scotland Yard inspector, Hazel MacWitch (Molly Weir) as a Scots Nanny, Max Wall as a juggler, Joss Ackland as a Texan (“You just know this country boy’s going to have that big ol’ dinosaur, don’t you?”), Joan Hickson (Helen Hayes also played Miss Marple in the ‘80s; all that was needed was David Suchet and Margaret Rutherford to complete the Christie list), Amanda Barrie, Frank Williams, Frederick Jaeger (as a German newsreader), Jane Lapotaire (memorable as Gene Hackman’s permanently sozzled wife in Eureka) and Richard “Mole” Pearson. 


Jock: Och, its Nessie!
Hamish: Why would she leave the crystal waters of Loch Ness for a dirty, muddy old London River?
Jock: It’s a sad end indeed for the loyal Scottish monster.

Some of the best of these come during the movie’s protracted central set piece, when “Ladies steal dinosaur!” and Wan and his men give chase through the fog-shrouded London streets. John Laurie (Jock) and Angus Lennie (Hamish) are on hand to remonstrate that it has come to this for their proud monster before returning to the pub.


Soon after, Jon Pertwee shows up in one of his best cameos (with Black Narcissus’ mad Kathleen Byron as his wife, doing a spot of tarot), furthering the theme of an incompetent and past-it Empire, as an eccentric colonel elated by the chance to shoot himself a rare prize (“Wonderful luck, my dear. A creature I’ve never bagged before”).


Lord Castleberry: At my age, Mozart had already completed six concertos.
Hettie: I don’t care what those foreign boys get up to, go and join the game.

Even the kids (Andrew Dove and Max Harris) are pretty good performers and remarkably non-irritating (and, going with the theme, little mercenaries through and through, happy to tag along with “Uncle” Wan for payment: “Alright boys, go and play with the pterodactyls. I will go and look at the, um, diplodocus”). 


The other aspect of Dinosaurs (the title is a riff on Powell and Pressburger’s One of Our Aircraft is Missing) that bears mention is the superlative score from Ron Goodwin. Admittedly, there’s a swathe of stereotypical Chinese cues in the incidentals, but the main theme is up there with his Margaret Rutherford Miss Marple theme as one of his very best pieces (and it’s a crime that it isn’t available to buy). 


It’s probably for good reason that Disney isn’t exactly shouting about this one, or looking to remake it in a hurry (even if a way was found, that it doesn’t feature a “live” dinosaur would probably be met with storms of protest from the target audience). They’re probably wanting to leave it undisturbed, but for all its inappropriateness, it’s blessed with a fine comic cast and a likably absurd premise. One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing is undoubtedly something of a dinosaur, and much of its appeal is probably skewed by childhood nostalgia, but there’s something visually unbeatable about a dinosaur skeleton on the back of a truck, it’s neck careening about, at it’s pursued through the fogbound London streets, to an infectiously jaunty Ron Goodwin accompaniment.



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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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'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.

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 ?