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.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There