Skip to main content

Perhaps I am dead. Perhaps we’re both dead. And this is some kind of hell.

The Avengers
5.7: The Living Dead

The Living Dead occupies such archetypal Avengers territory that it feels like it must have been a more common plotline than it was; a small town is the cover for invasion/infiltration, with clandestine forces gathering underground. Its most obvious antecedent is The Town of No Return, and certain common elements would later resurface in Invasion of the Earthmen. This is a lot broader than Town, however, the studio-bound nature making it something of a cosy "haunted house" yarn, Scooby Doo style.


Mrs PeelDo you believe in ghosts, Steed?
SteedSomeone does.

Others to mention in the same breath are Castle De'ath (apparently spooky goings-on masking more nefarious ones) and Death at Bargain Prices (a plot to set off nuclear weapons in the country). The graveyard set, meanwhile, has been recycled from From Venus with Love. The haunting aspect is tenuous to say the least (it’s the presumed-dead previous Duke of Benedict – Edward Underdown, previously of 4.2: The Murder Market – thought lost in a mine cave-in; he's gone walkabout from a subsurface town that he and his fellows have been forced to build for an army set to take over the country, once the latter have rained down a nuclear holocaust). The currency in untoward undertakings underground wasn't just the stuff of extravagant plots by diabolical masterminds during this period; a few years later, Penda's Fen would feature a radical protagonist passionately holding forth on what lies beneath at the behest of the homegrown government.


Mandy McKayFOG believes that all ghosts are friendly. People have always been frightened of ghosts, but have you ever considered that they may be frightened of us?

The ghostly subplot introduces the most readily identifiable trad-Avengers ingredients of this particularly period: the eccentric supporting characters, here personified by the representatives of FOG and SMOG. The former is also The Living Dead's effective twist villain; it's pretty clear estate manager Masgard (Julian Glover, 4.11: Two's A Crowd) is a bad seed as soon as we clap eyes on him, but Mandy McKay (Pamela Ann Davy, 2.1: Mission to Montreal) really does appear to be a loony ghost obsessive ("Ghosts are all around us") who refers to them as "poor things" and is the purported representative of FOG (Friends of Ghosts). 


Davy's performance is suitably OTT and hyperventilating, such that it comes as a surprise when she turns a gun on Steed late in the day, revealing herself to be a cohort of the unnamed country at the centre of things. It's also something of a surprise that Steed earlier succumbs to her charms, ("If you think you can make me change my… that you can twist me around your… that by rolling those… beautiful blue eyes") unless he secretly wanted to. Less of a surprise that she should be ultimately dismantled by some judo chopping from Mrs Peel.


George SpencerThe society doesn't believe in ghosts, Mrs Peel. We fight legend with logic, folklore with facts. You may rest assured, the dead Duke of Burgundy does not walk this area.

Her (brief) adversary in opinions (as a fake FOG-er) is George Spencer (Vernon Dobtcheff, 4.9: Room Without a View), holding up the sceptics' position through SMOG (Scientific Measurement of Ghosts), who rather like James Randi's later CSICOP, deny the existence of "Ghoulies and ghosties and things that go bump in the night", as Mrs Peel puts it. Presumably FOG is a genuine body if he's aware of it, and Mandy's appropriating their colours. 


Also to be seen are drunk Kermit (Jack Woolgar, Staff Sergeant Arnold in The Web of Fear), gamekeeper Tom (Alistair Williamson, 1.1: Hot Snow) and publican Hopper (Jack Watson, 4.13: Silent Dust), the latter's presence instantly drawing suspicion if you saw his previous series appearance, although he turns out to be one of the good guys this time. 


SteedThe Duke's estate. Hotly defended by gamekeepers.
Mrs PeelIsn't that their job?
SteedYes, but not when they shoot at things out of season.
Mrs PeelWhat's out of season now?
SteedMe.

More than holding up the serious end amid all the silly spookiness is Glover, on particularly brutish form. We first see him laying hands on Steed after he has been shot at by the gamekeeper, much to the Avenger's casual disapproval ("You're in danger of ruffling my feathers" he responds to being told to stay away, hitting Masgard's hand with his bowler).  


It's Masgard's rashness that leads Steed to confirm his suspicions; finishing his claret, Steed compliments current Duke Geoffrey (Howard Marion Crawford, 4.22: What the Butler Saw) on his wine cellar and Masgard assumes he's actually visited it (MasgardCellar?! Do you mean he's been down… Do you mean you've..." Duke: He's referring to the wine). It should be noted that Glover's forced to wear a very silly red helmet at one point, which he quickly removes (ex of Truffaut's Fahrenheit 451). Most sensible. That kind of thing could kill a career.


Firing Squad CaptainIt is customary to ask. Do you have any last requests before you die?
SteedYes, would you cancel my milk?

Although Emma gets abducted at the midpoint, she ends up having to save Steed when he follows suit and is stood in front of a firing squad (the last occasion was 3.25: Esprit De Corps). Rather alarmingly, she machine guns the entire troop, the most wanton act of violence we've seen from her so far. There's no remorse whatsoever; she's ice cold, even given the act is justified ("For that, you definitely get a mention in my will" says Steed).


Mrs PeelDid your whole life flash before your eyes?
SteedYes. Infinitely enjoyable.

The subterranean set is impressively designed and effectively shot by director John Krish, who previously did a bang-up job with the time travel effects in Escape in Time. Brian Clemens wrote this one – most of this clutch come from him or Philip Levene – from an idea by Anthony "Public Eye" Marriot (Marriot protested his lack of credit), resulting in a daft story but agreeably so. The coda, in which Emma is working on the Bentley, continues the long-since exhausted vehicular motif I hoped we were rid of and also references the preceding story ("Ghosts in the engine"). And, of course, features drinking.




















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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.