Skip to main content

Don’t you realise you’re endangering our lives with your incompetence?!

The Holcroft Covenant
(1985)

(SPOILERS) There’s something oddly comforting about 1980s Michael Caine spy thrillers, not because they are any good – most aren’t – but due to his sheer reliability in simply showing up, baring his teeth at some point while grimly enraged, and generally behaving as if he’s still a viable lead in such fare. Caine came on board The Holcroft Covenant late in the day when James Caan fell out, and it might have seemed at first glance to possess a very faintly promising pedigree; an admittedly past-his-prime John Frankenheimer was helming, it was adapted from a Robert Ludlum novel (pre-Bourne and lacking cachet but another of his having provided the source material for Sam Peckinpah’s last, The Ostermann Weekend) by George Axelrod (who hadn’t worked on anything acclaimed in about twenty years, but did have The Manchurian Candidate on his resumé) and Edward Anhalt. The result? Well, see my opening remark about Caine spy thrillers made in the ‘80s, only even less so.


Caine (ostensibly) made the movie to work with Frankenheimer and didn’t much like the end result (quite a common refrain on his part during that period). He also found the screenplay incomprehensible. I don’t know that it’s actually incomprehensible so much as the fiendishly evil plan doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Noel Holcroft (Caine), along with the children of two colleagues of his late Nazi father (as in dead, rather than a former Nazi), is left $4.5bn to use philanthropically to right the wrongs perpetrated by Hitler’s hordes, or so it goes (I kept wondering that such a stash wouldn’t instantly be confiscated, even given it’s in Switzerland, but let it go). Turns out, though, that dad – Herr General Heinrich Clausen (Alexander Kerst) – wasn’t such a repentant schweinhund after all; he was quite content to sacrifice his son as revenge on his missus (Lilli Palmer) for forsaking him, and in so doing laying the paving stones for the emergence of the Fourth Reich.


Tennyson: Can you imagine a hate so strong that it can wait years for revenge?

Accordingly, the concerns of Oberst (Richard Munch) that Noel was planning on using the loot to establish a Fourth Reich weren’t so balmy after all. In fact, the other members of the foundation, Mario Adorf’s Jurgen Maas (really Erich Kessler, son of Michael Wold’s General Kessler) and Anthony Andrews’ Jonathan Tennyson (Johann von Tiebolt), accompanied by his sister Helden (Victoria Tennant), have precisely that goal in mind, albeit somewhat goofily, via “a wonderful idea to consolidate every terrorist group in the world into one cohesive overwhelming force to create international crises”. This will throw the entire globe into anarchy and panic and so create the mood to accept a new leader. One might forward an argument that something not wholly dissimilar has been attempted with ISIS, but it still seems like something of a stretch. Better for a Bond movie, really.


Caine really does not give a toss in this one. He claims he’s always professional and… Well, he’s always watchable, but he seems indifferent to playing a nominal American (German-American) here, and if you didn’t notice his less-than-half-hearted approximation of a twang in various scenes, that wouldn’t be at all surprising. He’s also supposed to be a decade younger than he is, and while some can pull that off, he’s not really achieving it where it counts. Motivation-wise, it isn’t clear why Holcroft, a highly successful architect (“Sorry, I’m an architect, not a financial genius”) should want to get involved in the foundation at all, except to combat some sense of generational guilt (which isn’t remotely telegraphed). Holcroft’s also entirely passive, except, bizarrely, when called on to momentarily engage in an exchange of gunfire (his first time firing a weapon, and he shoots someone in the head, through a windscreen) or with a skilled assassin (turning a gun on him during a grapple).


Leighton: A shootout in Trafalgar Square just isn’t done.

The screenplay is nigh-on terminally exposition heavy, which means it takes the likes of Bernard Hepton (as Oberst’s cohort Leighton: “More often than not, I’m on the right side”) to deliver the goods. Frankenheimer stages a nice little assassination in crowd early on, as “highly respectable banker” Manfredi (Michael Lonsdale) leads an oblivious Holcroft to his car, but he seems most inspired by a sequence at a Berlin carnival, which seems to be there entirely for the director to leer with his camera at T&A.


That aside, Victoria Tennant is pretty but entirely forgettable as love interest-cum-cold-blooded killer Helda, not really pulling off the hooker gear in Berlin. Something was evidently amiss when she announced to Noel, “You’re wonderful. I’ve never met a man like you before”, but you’d be forgiven for assuming it was the flatulent dialogue that had been haunting the picture every step of the way, rather than necessarily her attempting to manipulate her mark (earlier, she berated Noel’s lack of a driving licence – mirroring Caine’s – with “Don’t you realise you’re endangering our lives with your incompetence?!”, so one might just have wondered if she wasn’t a bit loopy). Although, the reveal of an incestuous affair with her brother is a late-stage surprise (“My love, my sister, my spouse”). Talking of whom, Andrews far and away steals the show as a Nazi who works for The Guardian, who sports a silly tache but also gets the single best scene in the movie.


Tennyson: You see, the world must not be run by the frightened and ignorant and weak, and because of my father, and because of Kessler and because of Klausman, it will not be much longer.

Tennyson holds the list that Oberst and Leighton want (the thousand names that will change the world, of terrorist contacts), and late in the game he drops in unannounced on Oberst, who’s entertaining Noel’s mum Althene. Tennyson’s instantly commanding, disarming his host, airily complimenting Althene on the potato salad and sending a plate spinning into a wall above Oberst’s head (“Just keep your nasty, trembling, liver-spotted hands away from those buttons”, referring to Oberst’s wheelchair control panel). There’s a charming ruthlessness to Tennyson that Franhenheimer would have done well to have tapped more, as the director immediately ups his game when he’s got someone putting some welly in.


The Film Yearbook Vol 5 pronounced The Holcroft Covenant one of the Turkeys of the Year, Harlan Kennedy offering a particularly sturdy takedown of Ludlum’s rep (if this was the common view, it may explain why it took another decade and a half to make a success from one of his works, and that one did so by stripping the source novel of all but premise): “another doomed bid to film a book by that master of cinematic prolixity”.


Over-explanatory dialogue aside, The Holcroft Covenant’s pretty clunky and forgettable, alas. It fits loosely into the very minor subgenre of nascent Fourth Reich endeavours that includes The Boys from Brazil, but fails to really draw on the potential of the scenario. In the pantheon of ‘80s Caine thriller fare, I’d take all the other contenders (The Jigsaw Man, The Whistle Blower, The Fourth Protocol) over this one.




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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 ?