Skip to main content

I should advise a degree of alacrity, your Grace.

Jeeves and Wooster
3.2: The Full House 
(aka Bertie Ensures Bicky Can Continue to Live in Manhattan)

Ferdinand Fairfax took on directing duties for Season Three and reproduces the series' look and tone fairly seamlessly, although he's undoubtedly presented with challenges for the New York scenes he simply can't overcome. There's never any doubt this is making do in the tradition of threadbare productions unable to afford a hop across the Pond. Episode Two continues the use of Carry On, Jeeves, entwining two consecutive chapters to provide a compare-and-contrast of Bertie's chums' dominating relatives, who inevitably put a cramp in his style.


BertieThe last time that anything remotely interesting happened here was in 1842, when a tree fell over. They still talk about it in the village.

Of the two, the Rocky plotline is the more effective, despite my not liking Jay's performance very much and the Bicky Bickersteth (Julian Firth) story featuring the inimitable John Savident as the latter's father, the Duke of Chiswick. Heather Canning is a particularly formidable presence as M Rockmetteller, treating Bertie as a wastrel hanger-on ("You seem very much at home here, young man") and presuming to take his room when she stays. 


This is preceded by an amusing montage sequence in which Jeeves, volunteering to write to Rocky’s aunt regarding the New York nightlife, types and narrates his experiences; we see him playing double bass, the piano, and generally socialising his meticulously ironed socks off. The setup for this – taken from the original, so it isn’t Clive Exton's fault – is on the contrived side. M isn'’t well enough to enjoy New York herself, so wishes her nephew, who would rather live the quiet, poetic life. to experience it vicariously for her. The consequence of his failure to do so will be cutting him out of her will. Even more contrived is that M should then rock-metteller up in New York, having been rejuvenated by his missives. 


Still, it all turns out right in the end, in suitably seamless fashion; the abstinence preached by Jimmy Mundy (Lou Hiesch, an actual American, shockingly, who voiced Baby Herman in Who Framed Roger Rabbit) gets to M Rockmetteller when Jeeves "mistakenly" drags her to one of his meetings ("The man has very little intelligence"). 


ChiswickMy son employs a man servant?

If M makes Bertie's Aunt Agatha look positively benign, Chiswick is much less formidable, but the pickle his arrival produces is the more prodigious one. Bicky, working as a writer, is distraught that Chiswick wants him to learn ranching in Colorado. Jeeves' ruse that Bicky is doing exceedingly well in city – meaning he must take up residence in Bertie’s apartment as proof of his wealth –  rather backfires when Chiswick thinks he's doing so well that he can dispense with his allowance. 


Birdsburg VisitorWhat message have you for Birdsburg, Duke?

Various money-making schemes arise (Bicky wants to start a chicken farm, for which he eventually gets the money from dad), including the rather laboured Birdsburg convention paying to shake the Duke's hand; even allowing for rampant Anglophilia, it feels a tad tenuous, and the addition of their calling the police for the inevitable slapstick chase sequence when they become annoyed that Chiswick is an imposter ("Eighth duke? We want the first or nothing") fails to dispel this. The highlight might be Laurie trying to make Ricco Ross corpse in a Birdsburg-packed elevator.


The tie-up is as in the original story, however, with Jeeves suggesting Bicky sells the Birdsburg account to a newspaper if the Duke doesn’t capitulate to the chicken farm demand (although, on the page, Chiswick offers his son a secretarial position in London). Another variable effective episode, then, but worth it for Jeeves' reaction to Rocky's admission that he doesn't usually get out of his pyjamas until five in the afternoon.



Sources: 
Jeeves and the Hard-Boiled Egg (Carry On, Jeeves, Chapter 4)
The Aunt and the Sluggard (Carry On, Jeeves, Chapter 5)


Recurring characters:

Rockmetteller “Rocky” Todd (3.1, 3.2)
Liftman Coneybear (3.1, 3.2)














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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.