Skip to main content

Definitely the perfect prisoner’s friend.

The Avengers
1.20: Tunnel of Fear

(SPOILERS) As Alan Hayes observes (in the booklet accompanying the DVD release of this recently discovered Season One episode), there’s a more than passing kitchen sink element to Tunnel of Fear. You could almost expect it to form the basis of a Public Eye case, rather than one in which Steed and Dr Keel get involved, if not for the necessary paraphernalia of secrets being circulated via a circus fairground.


Also rather upending the show’s later assured form, while I thought Patrick Macnee was an easy scene stealer from Ian Hendry in The Frighteners, I’m not sure he’s always the more confident performer of the two at this stage. Perhaps it’s the “live” nature of the recording that finds him rushing through scenes almost breathlessly, or possibly it’s being encumbered with a working-class compere role (“Girlies! Girlies! Girlies!” – thank goodness he wasn’t written any polari), but he doesn’t come across entirely naturally until he’s called upon to light an explosive cigarette at the climax.


On this occasion, the case comes to Keel – although Steed enables the investigation to sprout wings – as Harry Black (Anthony Bate, probably best known as Oliver Laçon in the Alec Guinness George Smiley adaptations), injured breaking out of prison – incarcerated for a crime he didn’t commit – shows up at the surgery in need of some attention. 


Fortuitously, his predicament dovetails very neatly with a case on Steed’s radar, and the latter gets the go-ahead from One-Ten (Douglas Muir in his fourth appearance as the character, saddled with Steed’s dog: “Well, what kind of food do you give this beast?”) to investigate further. 


This will entail Keel becoming “Definitely the perfect prisoner’s friend” and Steed masquerading as the showgirls’ MC (it’s unclear quite how he got the job at short notice, particularly since the rest of the crew seems as thick as thieves – because they are, and spies to boot – and he doesn’t seem to know well enough not to inflame Maxie Lardner (Stanley Platts). The latter eventually sets on him – “I thought I told you to keep your maulers off my girls!” – leading to the gentleman spy being bashed on the head with a vase by one of Rosie (Julie Samuels). Steed has been rather ungentlemanly, however – presumably purely in service of his cover – earlier slapping Rosie on the bottom, and this after he's caused another girl to squeal by laying his maulers on her.


CarolWhy don’t you go on a nice long holiday and leave us to get on with our work?

It isn’t only Maxie who’s unimpressed. Steed isn’t in the good books of Keel’s faithful nurse Carol (Ingrid Hafner), clearly having called upon the good doctor’s services a few too many times, but he nevertheless seems irrepressible in his bonhomie, even smooth-talking Harry’s mum (Doris Rogers): “There’s more to this than meets the eye. And yours are rather lovely”. Incorrigible is the word. There’s some quality interaction between this pair, including Steed referencing the law of probabilities, to which she responds “Can you be done for breaking it?


The most Avengers-y part of the plot gets the jump on The Manchurian Candidate by a good year (and the series would go there again, of course, with 4.9: Room Without a View). Harry was drugged then hypnotised, explaining his lack of memory of the night he supposedly stole the weekend’s takings of the fairground. The master hypnotist is Billy (Douglas Rye), working at the behest of Jack Wickram (John Salew) who “was took prisoner” in Korea and acted “very strange” when he came back, “like as if he had been brainwashed”.


Steed is captured and subjected to the technique, although I was unclear how far under he was supposed to be, or if he was under at all; Jack evidently isn’t sure either, on account of Steed’s cryptic responses; asked who he works for, he responds “I don’t know. Nobody knows”, which is probably true. And lists unhelpful facts about Keel (including the rather unfortunate repeated refrain of “Fond of children, fond of children”).


KeelYou mean you weren’t bluffing?
SteedI must confess, I really frightened myself for a moment. Quite frightened now. They cost a fortune.

If it sounds as if Steed gets all the good stuff, he’s actually offscreen for much of the third act, and perhaps the most surprising development is the domestic scene between Harry and his girlfriend Claire (Miranda Connell), who we first see ironing away in her bra and continuing to do so when the police barge into her house boat, just after she has concealed Keel and Harry. In a decidedly maturely-skewed turn of events, it’s revealed that Claire had a bairn while Harry was inside. Harry responds with “The little tramp!” while his ma insists it could happen to anyone and that she will stick by Claire over her son if it comes to it. Keel can only observe the exchange empathically, reticent of the delicate ground of attempting to offer advice. 


There’s no holy grail feeling to Tunnel of Fear, but it’s a very solid episode and offers additional insight into the show’s gradually development over the course of its first year. The idea of Steed using an unskilled civilian never quite gels at any point – certainly not with Season Two’s Dr King and Venus Smith – but Keel’s at least halfway believable as someone who’d willingly get embroiled in perilous plots and could take care of himself along the way (it’s a little more difficult to believe he’d be willing to use the gun he trains on villains, though). An episode also notable for being the final appearance from Steed’s pooch Puppy, who apparently had an accident on the underground and died. You’re left with more questions than answers knowing that, though.





















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

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.

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.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.