Skip to main content

Toodle-oo, comrades.

Jeeves and Wooster
3.6: Comrade Bingo 
(aka Aunt Dahlia, Cornelia and Madeline)

PG Wodehouse wasn't famed for his piercing political insights. Indeed, he was vilified for a lengthy period over his apparent obliviousness in that area. But Comrade Bingo, a 1922 short story collected in The Inimitable Jeeves, found him taking pot-shots at the increasingly popular communist movement. Sprinkle in some Spode (just because, and to offer some groundwork for the final season's unlikeliest of marriages), and you have the author’s ridiculing of twin political extremes in one melee. Oh, and there’s a plotline involving Bertie stealing a painting from Jeeves Makes an Omelette.


Mr Rowbotham:Comrade Butt yearns for the revolution, just like you do.
Aunt DahliaComrade Wooster never yearned for anything in his life, except a stone-dead cert at a hundred to one.

Both Comrade Bingo and Jeeves Makes an Omelette are big on outrageous incident. Perhaps why they make a surprisingly effortless symphony when combined, albeit Aunt Dahlia's presence at Red Dawn meetings is stretching things a tad. This time, Dahlia's played, for one time only, by Patricia Lawrence; Brenda Bruce (Season One) is obviously the highwater mark for Dahlias, and Lawrence is likeable but rather forgettable in the role. She's a little bit too laid back in delivery, even though she's given some expert jibes. Which are most notably levelled at both Bertie and Madeline (her responses to the latter's gooey-eyed pick for a winning gee-gee is "Has anyone told you you're not safe to be out?")


BertieOh, I like the patina.
Aunt DahliaYou don’t even know that a patina is.
BertieNo, but it's generally safe to say something like that when confronted with a bit of art.

Dahlia's the one putting Bertie up to a spot of art thievery, her reasons being… No, I'll leave it to Bertie to explain, who has been discovered preparing for the crime by the picture's painter, leading to the latter experiencing rather a shock. Asked if he explained to Edward Fothergill (Chris Banks) why he was in the dining room at one in the morning covered in treacle, he responds thus:

BertieNo, I didn't, Aunt Dahlia. I didn't tell him that I was hell bent on stealing his painting in order that his son might be cured of chronic dyspepsia so that his grateful daughter-in-law would then allow my aunt to publish said daughter-in-law's latest novel in her magazine of ladies of refinement. For one thing, I didn't think he’s believe me. And for another, he fainted.


This despite Bertie's protestations over being inveigled into the whole bally business ("Call me old fashioned, but I have a distinct antipathy towards bars on windows and eating off tin plates"). As in the story, Bertie swipes the wrong painting, but there's also a significant divergence – in replication of the safe-robbing incident last episode – as Spode is added to the list of those engaging in the underhand act.


Lady BittleshamEverard's painting Lord Sidcup at the moment.
BertieReally, what colour?
Lady BittleshamI don't understand.

Spode, bedecked in crown and gown, is now seventh Earl of Sidcup, owing to the timely expiry of one of his relatives (an uncle). He is thus divesting himself of his more overtly fascist trappings ("Bidding farewell to my legions") in exchange for a seat in the Lords. Clive Exton's devotion to Spode means there's some consistency in his rather unnerving thing for Madeline, and with no Gussie in sight, Spode takes out his lack of satisfaction on Bertie. Who makes life difficult for himself, emptying a vase over her ("pestering her", as Spode puts it, warning he will "Tear your head off and make you carry it around in a bag"; this flusters Bertie enough that he calls him "Lord Spodecup") and falling asleep during her recital ("You are a philistine, Wooster").


SpodeIt's my mother.
BertieWhat is?
SpodeAre you trying to be funny?

Spode wants to steal the painting because his mother modelled for it (all of this is Exton-invented). This leads to a curious scene, based on the short story but with added Spode, where Bertie is beaten senseless in order to provide an alibi of a break-in partially foiled. Spode is lent "hero" status, indulged in taking delight in bashing Bertie twice on the bonce ("Let me do it. Let me do it"). It feels a little too much as if it's playing to audience feedback on the character and laughing with him rather than at him.


Then there’s Edward's reaction when Jeeves fails to dispose of the picture before he wakes up ("I hate that picture. Oh, throw it on the fire, for God's sake"). Maybe just a little convenient; in the story, he simply steals back the present to his son, regretting having gifted it to him in the first place.


BingoYou don't know how to raise fifty quid, do you?
BertieWork?

I’ve always found Comrade Bingo a particularly amusing little tale, and the translation to screen mostly does it credit. Pip Torrens takes over from the delightfully blithering Michael Siberry as Bingo. He suits Bingo's more combative tone in this story, donning a fake beard and slinging insults at his uncle Lord Bittlesham (the returning Geoffrey Toone, Hepesh in The Curse of Peladon). Nevertheless, one can entirely believe in Siberry’s hapless and constantly newly-smitten Bingo; there’s a harder edge to Torrens’ incarnation that doesn't quite work the same magic (I'd also have liked to see Siberry give this communist sympathiser version a try). Bingo's behaviour is ostensibly on behalf of the Heralds of the Red Dawn, but it's really about love. Bingo has, after all, had his previous romantic plans scuppered by Bittlesham marrying his cook, leading to a reduction in his allowance.  


BingoHer father wants, amongst other things, to massacre the bourgeoise, sack Park Lane and disembowel the aristocracy. Can’t say fairer than that!

Mostly, though, Bingo is smitten with Charlotte Rowbotham (Rachel Robertson), whose father (Peter Benson, Bor in Terminus) heads up the Heralds of the Red Dawn. He's intent on prising fifty quid from his uncle to put on the same's horse Ocean Breeze in the Goodwood Cup. he can then marry Charlotte with the proceeds. Hence trying to blackmail the sum from his uncle in a big red beard, on threat of his life. 


Bingo has competition for Charlotte in the form of Comrade Butt (Colin Higgins, Tak in Blake's 7 Killer): "Don't trust that Comrade Little". Butt "looks like a haddock with lung trouble" and is constantly stirring, particularly when Bingo invites everyone to Bolshevist tea at Bertie's flat. Jeeves is required to pretend to be Bertie's chum ("Comrade sir, sardines, sir?"; he particularly grimaces at being required to serve communist food such as sardines). Bertie fails to convince anyone that they're all equals when he shows himself unable to use the kettle and reveals he doesn't know the flat runs on electric rather than gas ("Full blown bourgeois decadence, that's what I call it" charges Butt). Butt is somewhat swayed by Jeeves, however, who knows his Stalin ("It is as well to know exactly what tunes the devil is playing, sir").


BingoI tell you, this country won’t be a fit place for honest men to live in until the blood of Lord Bittlesham and his kind runs in rivers down the gullies of Park Lane!

Jeeves outright sabotages Bingo's plan. This would seem to be on the principle of what he deems to be inappropriate behaviour (Bertie concurs in the story, giving him all the money on the dresser). Bingo is thus unmasked at Goodwood (the racetrack is full of "capitalist hyenas"), and a fracas develops between the black shorts and Red Dawn. Almost everyone takes a hit financially, except for Jeeves, who observed something disquieting in the gait of Ocean Breeze, and Madeline who "thought I heard a little fairy voice saying his name over and over" (Jeeves admits to the feasibility: "Possibly sir, but I received the same information as Miss Basset from a rather spotty stable lad").


BertieIf you ask me, Jeeves, art is responsible for most of the trouble in this world.
JeevesIt's an interesting theory, sir. Would you care to expatiate upon it?
BertieWell, as a matter of fact, no, Jeeves. No. The thought just occurred to me, you know. As thoughts do.
JeevesVery good, sir.

It's left only for Bertie to make unsubstantiated assertions regarding the problematic role of art in society. Season Three of Jeeves and Wooster isn't quite assured as the previous two, getting off to a bumpy start in "New York" and suffering from the replacement of several recurring cast members with lesser incarnations (although the new Madeline is perfection). Nevertheless, there's no sign of the series flagging in energy or Exton tiring in his inventive adaptations. 



Sources
Comrade Bingo (Chapters 11 & 12, The Inimitable Jeeves)
Jeeves Makes an Omelette (Chapter 4 of A Few Quick Ones, Chapter 33 of The World of Jeeves)


Recurring Characters:

Aunt Dahlia (1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 3.6)
Madeline Basset (1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6)
Sir Roderick Spode (2.1, 2.2, 3.5, 3.6)
Bingo Little (1.1, 1.3, 2.6, 3.6)
Lord Bittlesham (2.6, 3.6)



















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.

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…

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.

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

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism