Skip to main content

I've killed him! I've killed him again!

The Avengers
5.10: Never, Never Say Die.

An episode that sets out its store of intrigue quite nicely, and hums confidently along, but ultimately reveals itself holding the least plausible of decks. Never, Never Say Die sounds like a Bond title and tends to be a fairly highly-regarded episode, however; I can only assume much of that is based on its illustrious guest star, Christopher Lee, strutting his stuff in dual roles; both Professor Frank N Stone (hur-hur) and his monster, a part he has, of course, played before.


SteedWhen I was here last, the professor was not at his best.

At one point, Steed invokes the possibility that the professor is experiencing some sort of Jekyll-and-Hyde condition, which would, dare I say it, have been much more interesting. As it, is the clip from The Cybernauts (Emma is watching it on TV, which shows the show has now fully scaled the peak of uber meta-ness) seems to be winking at the audience and saying, "If this episode seems vaguely familiar, that’s because it is". With a sprinkling of Invasion of the Body Snatchers



It's also a clear signal that, after a string of soft SF, fake SF, and not-actually-fantasy episodes, the show is occasionally willing to go the whole untrammelled hog. These aren't just robots; they're automatons with the minds of their subjects transferred into them (rather begging the question whether expiring scientists would want their minds entombed in a metal shell and plastic skin):

Fake Dr StoneNo, Mr Steed, that is not my twin. That is a machine.
SteedA robot?
Fake Dr StoneWhat we call a duplicate. This can repair and recreate itself. All it needs is power. It's programmed like a computer with a man's complete memory. His total experience… What you would call a brain transfer, I suppose. It's based on the absorption of electrical impulses. By this means, Mr Steed, great minds need never die. We can preserve not only memory and experiences, but thought processes as well.


Philip Levene's screenplay offers much explanation of the goings-on at the Ministry of Technology, Neoteric Research Unit while simultaneously inviting us not ask too many questions. There are problems with weight and radio frequencies (the latter causing the duplicates to go on the rampage, smashing up anything emitting a disrupting signal), and they don't seem anywhere near being solved. The brain drain is invoked, and the promise "If we are to preserve our finest minds, in a matter of ten to twenty years we will outstrip every other nation. There will be no limited whatsoever to our advancement" with the tacit exclusion of politicians from the list, but since this is the fake Stone talking, who knows the truth of the matter (they're planning to duplicate the minister and his entourage, after all). And the declaration "We duplicates are programmed to survive, Mr Steed. We are programmed to take over" is puzzling. Who programmed them for this? Dr Stone? If so, why? And how does the programming mesh with the aim to transfer minds undiluted?


Fake Dr StoneIf we can show you the results of our work², if we can convince you it's perfectly safe, can we rely on your support?
SteedAsk me again after you’ve shown me.

Nevertheless, director Robert Day (Two Way Stretch) has a strong sense for pace, and there are memorable interludes and cameos to punctuate the duplications. Christopher Benjamin (4.14: How to Succeed… At Murder's JJ Hooter) is the focus of a first-rate teaser, hitting Stone's double with his car and being told the victim is DOA (how much of an exam did they actually give him?), only for the body to get up and leave; later, Whittle hits him a second time, prompting the memorable "I've killed him! I've killed him again!"


There's also the briefest or appearances by Arnold Ridley, causing confusion with a remote-controlled boat. Other Dad’s Army regulars to appear in the show include Arthur Lowe (5.19: Dead Man's Treasure), John Le Mesurier (3.21: Mandrake, 4.22: What the Butler Saw), Clive Dunn (5.14: Something Nasty in the Nursery), John Laurie (2.11: Death of a Great Dane, 3.2: Brief for Murder, 5.13: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Station, 6.28: Pandora), and Talfryn Thomas (4.10: A Surfeit of H₂O, 6.7: Look… (stop me if you’ve heard this one) But There Were These Two Fellers…)


Indian Chess PlayerAfter much thought and prayer my knight moves to rook six.
EcclesAh, I shall answer with my rook to bishop four.
Indian Chess PlayerGoodness gracious me.

After showing off his fake Italian Piedi in 4.19: The Quick-Quick Slow Death, David Kernan was obviously a hit with producers (and, I'd hazard, Rigg), receiving an encore in which he tries out more accents to less mirthful effect; a short-wave radio buff, he informs Emma "There's nothing like a game of chess to improve international relations" as he mimics the accents of each of his chess opponents in different countries. His voices might at first appear insensitive, but it at least becomes clear he’s an equal-opportunities desecrator of dialects…until the stereotyping is evidenced by the depictions of his challengers too. Spike Milligan would have been proud.


Also present are Jeremy Young (his Willy Frant failed the pea test in 4.21: A Touch of Brimstone) as Stone’s assistant Doctor Penrose – and Penrose’ duplicate – and Patricia English (2.1: Mission to Montreal, 3.14: The Secrets Broker) as another doctor, James, and another duplicate. 


Mrs PeelDo you find her attractive?
SteedNot a patch on you. How about him?

The main claim to fame of the climax is it sourcing one of the most iconic Avengers images (the header picture for this review); ironic, given Steed and Emma are playing their duplicates here. Such playfulness and scant regard for suspension of disbelief are now rampant in the show, the only caveat being how well it’s done. The opening "Mrs Peel were needed" has Steed appearing on TV (interrupting The Cybernauts), while the coda picks up the broadcast theme, with his dismay at the lack of viewing choice and Emma switching on a party-political broadcast; the gag that follows is fairly basic ("You know, we've just averted a disaster. Can you imagine plastic politicians?": "Who would ever know the difference?") Cheers.


















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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Something something trident.

Aquaman (2018)
(SPOILERS) If Aquaman has a problem – although it actually has two – it’s the problem of the bloated blockbuster. There's just too much of it. And the more-more-more element eventual becomes wearing, even when most of that more-more-more is, on a scene-by-scene basis, terrifically executed. If there's one thing this movie proves above all else, it's that you can let director James Wan loose in any given sandpit and he’ll make an above-and-beyond castle out of it. Aquaman isn't a classic, but it isn’t for want of his trying.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

You look like an angry lizard!

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)
(SPOILERS) I can quite see a Queen fan begrudging this latest musical biopic for failing to adhere to the facts of their illustrious career – but then, what biopic does steer a straight and true course? – making it ironic that they're the main fuel for Bohemian Rhapsody's box office success. Most other criticisms – and they're legitimate, on the whole – fall away in the face of a hugely charismatic star turn from Rami Malek as the band's frontman. He's the difference between a standard-issue, episodic, join-the-dots narrative and one that occasionally touches greatness, and most importantly, carries emotional heft.

Mountains are old, but they're still green.

Roma (2018)
(SPOILERS) Roma is a critics' darling and a shoe-in for Best Foreign Film Oscar, with the potential to take the big prize to boot, but it left me profoundly indifferent, its elusive majesty remaining determinedly out of reach. Perhaps that's down to generally spurning autobiographical nostalgia fests – complete with 65mm widescreen black and white, so it's quite clear to viewers that the director’s childhood reverie equates to the classics of old – or maybe the elliptical characterisation just didn't grab me, but Alfonso Cuarón's latest amounts to little more than a sliver of substance beneath all that style.

The wolves are running. Perhaps you would do something to stop their bite?

The Box of Delights (1984)
If you were at a formative age when it was first broadcast, a festive viewing of The Box of Delights may well have become an annual ritual. The BBC adaptation of John Masefield’s 1935 novel is perhaps the ultimate cosy yuletide treat. On a TV screen, at any rate. To an extent, this is exactly the kind of unashamedly middle class-orientated bread-and-butter period production the corporation now thinks twice about; ever so posh kids having jolly adventures in a nostalgic netherworld of Interwar Britannia. Fortunately, there’s more to it than that. There is something genuinely evocative about Box’s mythic landscape, a place where dream and reality and time and place are unfixed and where Christmas is guaranteed a blanket of thick snow. Key to this is the atmosphere instilled by director Renny Rye. Most BBC fantasy fare doe not age well but The Box of Delights is blessed with a sinister-yet-familiar charm, such that even the creakier production decisions may be vi…

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

Charles Dickens would have wanted to see her nipples.

Scrooged (1988)
If attaching one’s name to classic properties can be a sign of star power on the wane (both for directors and actors), a proclivity for appearing in Christmas movies most definitely is. Just look at Vince Vaughn’s career. So was Bill Murray running on empty a mere 25 years ago? He’d gone to ground following the rejection of his straight-playing The Razor’s Edge by audiences and critics alike, meaning this was his first comedy lead since Ghostbusters four years earlier. Perhaps he thought he needed a sure-fire hit (with ghosts) to confirm he was still a marquee name. Perhaps his agent persuaded him. Either way, Scrooged was a success. Murray remained a star. But he looked like sell-out, sacrificing his comedy soul for a box office bonanza. He’d seem even more calculating seven months later when tired sequel Ghostbusters II emerged. Scrooged is guilty of exactly the kind of over-sized, commercially cynical production this modern retelling of A Christmas Carol (only partial…