Skip to main content

Well, I've always had a hankering for the eighteenth century. Gadzooks and stap me vitals.

The Avengers
5.2: Escape in Time

I suppose one couldn’t expect The Avengers to deliver a genuine "Could-it-be-possible?" element to a time-travel plot, but Escape in Time doesn't offer even a modicum of suspense or intrigue regarding how the scheme is being achieved; as soon as one of the intended victims escapes "1680" and shows up at Steed's flat (not even ten minutes in), it's clear we'll have to look elsewhere for satisfying plot twists.


ThyssenI can send a man back, through the centuries, back to an era where before he never even existed.

Unfortunately, there aren't really any. The side streets contact routine is reasonably diverting, as Steed and then Emma must run the relay of go-betweens – inflatable animal sellers, barbers who slap a cross in duct tape on their cheeks, a servant of Ganesh – in order to meet up with Thyssen (Peter Bowles), who offers an escape from clients' current problems into the past; they may choose an earlier period to settle in, traveling back to a previous period in Thyssen's house's existence. Where, of course, an ancestor who looks remarkably like its current owner lives.


ThyssenThese strange clothes you wear. The devil’s work! Designed to daze and bewitch a man's senses. To inflame him to lust.
Mrs PeelYou should see me 400 years from now.

Bowles gives a strong performance, so there's that, as a stammering, insecure Thyssen and Thyssen posing as his full-blooded ancestors (most notably Matthew, the black sheep of the family, having a go at Mrs Peel, who is having none of it, for her provocative attire). As Shallow Like Us notes, the doppelgänger in different time periods is resonant of City of Death. And as per The Fear Merchants, both Avengers face the villain in turn, with Steed offering a particularly winning "I haven't been found out yet" in response to Thyssen's inquiry over why he's unaware of his criminal exploits. And musing "Well, I've always have had a hankering for the eighteenth century. Gadzooks and stap me vitals" when asked which period he would like to escape to. 


There are some nice ideas here, admittedly, and the corridor tunnel effect is suitably disorientating and psychedelic, complete with an amusingly showy slot machine handle for the "device". There are "period" photos and footage of previous travellers, suggesting 12 Monkeys or Nic Cage through the ages, and copious employment of Dutch angles to add to the overall effect. 


SteedWell.
VestaWell?
SteedMrs Peel in the hands of the enemy. My confederate lying unconscious. A loaded gun pointed at my neck... I'm trapped. (Steed turns swiftly, grabbing Vesta and her weapon). Shall we dance?


Individual moments stand out as distinctive: Steed's gun ending up stuck in a chandelier during a fight, Geoffrey Bayldon's Clapham – something of a waste of Bayldon, the role failing to take full advantage of his eccentricity – being able to get a fix on the country house thanks to Steed's blindfolded recall of fowl play ("Turkeys. There were turkeys about"– residents of the Yule Tide Turkey Farm), Mrs Peel's response to Thyssen's admiration for her beauty ("I appreciate your appreciation"). And Steed generally, entirely unruffled by his predicament.


SteedRemarkable, quite remarkable.
Mrs PeelOh, it's not that good.
SteedThat you can sew. Known you all this time, never knew that you could sew.
Mrs PeelWell, our relationship hasn't exactly been domestic, has it?


Of note with regard to our central duo, Steed and Emma indulge in some fake canoodling and later make a pointed innuendo about their relationship (which could be read either way). There are some nice exchanges as they run through a selection of photos of disappearing acts; Emma remarks on an evil face if ever she saw one and Steed responds "That’s Tubby Vincent – he's on our side!" He comments of another, "Now there's a face full of avarice. Reminds me of an auntie of mine". The "Mrs Peel – we’re needed" is an invitation to a grand hunt ball while the conclusion finds us back in the realm of Season 4's transport motif, Steed covered in soot when he tries to start an Edwardian taxi. There's also another fight in a quarry, this time for Emma's stunt double to fend off a fellow on a motorbike. An episode that's memorable for premise, but not so much for follow-through.






















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.