Skip to main content

Ruination to all men!

The Avengers
24: How to Succeed…. At Murder

On the one hand, this episode has a distinctly reactionary whiff about it, pricking the bubble of the feminist movement, with Steed putting a female assassin over his knee and tickling her into submission. On the other, it has Steed putting a female assassin over his knee and tickling her into submission. How to Succeed… At Murder (a title play on How to Succeed at Business Without Really Trying, perhaps) is often very funny, even if you’re more than a little aware of the “wacky” formula that has been steadily honed over the course of the fourth season.


There can be little doubt about the tone from the teaser onwards, in which a secretary (Zeph Gladstone) blows up her boss (David Garth) from the safety of her desk with a Looney Tunes-style detonator before nonchalantly resuming her duties. You could imagine Spike Milligan doing something similar in Q.


There have been eleven murders (“Quite an epidemic. All of them prominent businessmen”), and inevitably, Steed poses as a businessman to lure a secretary intent on wresting him from power. Just as inevitably, Emma signs up with the hit squad, having traced a suspicious perfume to a keep fit class attended by the perpetrators. This leads to eccentric highlight of the episode.


JJ Hooter: My proboscis, Mrs Peel is probably the most sensitive in Europe. I shall be glad to assist you.

Her means of getting there are inquiring after the pungent scent, by way of consulting JJ Hooter, perfumier extraordinary (Christopher Benjamin, Litefoot, of course), who sports a nose cosy and an extravagant line in impressing upon her his abilities:

JJ Hooter: While wearing it, no obnoxious effluvia assaults my nostrils. It is highly necessary. You see, I smell a great deal.
Mrs Peel: You do? I mean, you do.
JJ Hooter: My nose is in great demand… I have smelled all over the world… (removing his nose protection) There you see the splendid beast, naked before you. But wait until you see him in action, Mrs Peel. Wait until you see him flare.


Hooter’s prognosis is that the perfume is one of his own design – Leap into my Fervid Arms! – eliciting a “Pardon?” from Mrs Peel.


Mrs Peel: I got cramp in my gluteals and my dorsals were definitely dormant.

There’s more leaping when Emma joins the keep fit class, where she and the girls are instructed by Henry (Artro Morris), the apparently servile companion of Henrietta, his wife. Until she is revealed as first a vents doll (at the halfway mark), and then as Henry himself, ventriliquising her. The reasons for the scheme are initially standard issue:

Mrs Peel: Because you have been subjugated for too long?
Henrietta: That is the function of this organisation, Mrs Peel. To take woman out of the secretary’s chair and put her behind the executive desk. To bring men to heel and put women at the pinnacle of power.
Mrs Peel: Twentieth century Amazons.
Henrietta: Exactly.


But Henry is finally revealed as suffering a more acute malady, fully invested as he is in his dual relationship. He asserts that “men did that to her” (the real Henrietta killed herself, having gone bankrupt as a result of being persuaded to start her own ballerina business), so more generally condemning capitalism than men per se (an irony of his scheme is that Henry is effectively training women to operate in the same ruthless manner as men).


Henrietta: Kill him, Henry kill him!
Henry: Yes dear.
Henrietta: Kill him! Kill him!

The finale largely finds Emma dealing with the deadly dames (“It’s okay Steed, I can manage”) while he delivers the sermon (“We do have our uses, ma’am”) and performs the unveiling; it’s the man who shows the women their leader is one of his kind, and gets to gloat over how silly they’ve been (“You’ve been taking orders from a man. All this time, you’ve been fooled by a very brilliant ventriloquist”). He also kills the rather pathetic Henry, which one can only figure was inspired more for the comic consequences (shot through the dummy, both Henry and Henrietta die together) than his especially deserving it. It might also be noted that the puppet bears a marked resemblance to Clare Balding.


Sara: What you need, Mr Steed, is a secretary. A thoroughly efficient secretary.

As mentioned, the episode also features the tickling incident, which plays out with Steed inviting both his secretary Sara (Angela Browne) and Liz (Gladstone) into his flat. Earlier, he has been studiedly sexist (“Where do I sit?” asks Sara. “Here would be delightfully informal” replies Steed, indicating his knee) and delivered some incomprehensible dictation (which sounds like “Dear Sir, further to us at the fourth instant, re mine set an oblique stroke 99942 at the first instant, I beg to inform you–”).


On admittance, he naturally offers them drinks before firing fizz at Liz (“Terrible weather, and nothing between you and the weather but leather. Ah well, nice warm brandy, soon warm you up. Soda?”) and putting Sara over his knee. Later, he fires off another quick response on entering the keep fit class and being confronted by members armed with a pistol, dagger, Schmeisser and mace: “Well, if I’d known, I’d have brought my ray gun”.


Other memorable incidents include Steed being beaten up by a woman with a shoe, Emma painting his abstract portrait (“Do I look like that?”) and the appearance of Jerome Willis (The Green Death) as initially unsympathetic accountant Rudge. The idea that it’s a complex filing system that will make the women indispensable when the men have been killed is perhaps a little on the mundane side, but that has to be balanced against the hearty rallying cry of “Ruination to all men!” 


The laugh-off is amusing if predictable, as Steed and Mrs Peel exchange voice throwing (“Steed, I saw your lips moving”).




















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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for