Skip to main content

You’ll note, gentlemen, the correct way of doing everything, even in defeat.

The Avengers
5.9: The Correct Way to Kill

You wouldn't get away with this kind of thing today. An undisguised remake of third season episode The Charmers, right down to its choicer dialogue, looking at them side by side is neither revealing as a shot-for-shot exercise (Gus van Sant's Psycho) nor the changes resulting from a switch to colour and upping the budget (The Man Who Knew Too Much, although there were additional substantial changes there, of course). Instead, both versions have their positives and negatives, but for me, this new one never quite manages to improve sufficiently on source material that was never quite there in the first place.


GroskiWhat's the matter with him? Is he dumb or something?
PercyNo, he's British. Naturally, he wouldn't dream of discussing business with you until he's been formally introduced.

What changes there are, are often cosmetic. The charm school for killers, "A breeding ground for young gentlemen" is essentially the same, but the Academy of Charm for Aspiring Gentlemen is now the more era-overt S.N.O.B. (Sociability, Nobility, Omnipotence, Breeding Inc). The dental surgery of the original has been substituted for a chiropodist, but its significance to the plot is otherwise as tenuous as ever. The gentleman's outfitter has become more focussed on umbrellas (where before crates of bowlers concealed bodies, now it's brollies).


SteedHow I envy you, working cheek by jowl with Ivan.
Mrs PeelI can assure you, my cheek's going to be nowhere near his jowl.

In most respects, I'd argue the original is superior. The teaming of Russian agents with British ones to find out who is killing the Russians is repeated, but Philip Madoc (2.7: The Decapod, 2:25: Six Hands Across the Table, 3.10: Death of a Batman), although unceremoniously bumped off and dumped in a crate, makes more of an impression as Ivan than John Barcroft did when teamed with Mrs Gale.


SteedHello Comrade, where's Nutski?
Mrs PeelI've handed in my notice.
SteedOh?
Mrs PeelThe other side was cheating. Nutski had no intention of seriously honouring the truce.
SteedWell, I'm not surprised. I never thought he would.

In contrast, while his Brodsky will never be my favourite Avengers comedy character, Warren Mitchell made a much better Russian boss (Keller) than Michael Gough (4.7: The Cybernauts) as Nutski, who simply cannot pull off the comedy (the "He laughed all the way down" reminiscence is repeated line-for-line, and very funny in the original; here, it resembles nothing so much as a flaccid regurgitation of an old Python sketch, with no one putting anything into it; Steed's "I haven’t killed anyone all week" is recycled too). 


Gough's also unconvincing with his accent (Madoc clearly loves doing his) and doesn't seem to be putting much into the dramatic side either. In both, they're the mastermind behind the charm school, selling secrets to the highest bidder, but Nutski's ambition is somewhat higher than Keller's. He plans to use his "highly trained force, and they get better every day" to introduce a third world power, the State of Nutskiville. If Gough's performance were more engaging, his megalomania might have been too.


SteedMay I call you Olga?
OlgaComrade Veloski. Informality breeds undiscipline.
SteedYou are absolutely right. Will you have a drink?
OlgaHard liquor softens the brain.

Anna Quayle has fun deadpanning as "Olga from the Volga", a bone-crushing, permanently unamused presence, and her genuine Russian agent makes much more sense than Fenella Fielding's actor playing a spy. That needs to be countered against Fielding having a better rapport with Macnee, and her character being more engaging. Still, at least Olga is sufficiently distinctive that she diverges from the path of a straight retread ("It is as I expected. Opulent, luxurious, expensive and thoroughly decadent").


PonsonbyMr Watson! We are waggling, Mr Watson. We are waggling when we should be thrusting. We’ve had to talk to you about waggling before. Up, man. Up!

Ponsonby (Terence Alexander, 4.1: The Town of No Return) is no match for his corresponding charm school head Mr Edgar (Brian Oulton) either. The latter's veneration of Steed is very amusing, and Alexander just can't equal that. He does however, offer some nice touches such as his dismissive acknowledgement of Olga ("And you too, madam") after effusively greeting Steed with "Allow me to welcome you to SNOB", and his informal "And as you know, Mr Steed, a young gentleman is naked without his umbrella". Best of all is his approval of Steed's raising his hands when surrounded: "You’ll note, gentlemen, the correct way of doing everything, even in defeat".


SteedEmbarrassing. If he had been naughty, they might have had the good manners to pop him off in his own country…. It's just not cricket.

There's an emphasis in the early stages on Steed's own presumption of gentility, and the correct way of doing things in relation to bumping off Russian spies on British soil, if done by the Russians themselves  ("Awkward phase or not, I don't approve of it"), although it doesn't really go anywhere, and there's no concluding moral about those who use manners and etiquette for villainous ends (although that's probably for the best, being as it's The Avengers and not needing to lead by the nose).


GroskiYou British, you'll be the death of me.
PercyYes, exactly.
AlgyIndubitably.

The opening murders are staged with some aplomb by Charles Crichton (his only contribution to this season). Besides Groski (John G Heller, 4.12: Man-Eater of Surrey Green), Percy (Peter Barkworth, 1.22: Kill the King and 3.16: The Medicine Men) and Algy (Graham Armitage, Barney in The Macra Terror, 4.19: Quick-Quick Slow Death) enjoy several amusing assassinations, including via revolving doors and lifts, and are an effective presence, genteel but sinister for it.


PercyIt will do no good to struggle, Miss Veloski.
AlgyWe’ve secured you with old school ties.
PercyAnd the bonds of the old school tie are nigh on impossible to break.

As such, in theory, they should be the perfect mirror to Steed, using all that etiquette for evil ends, but the inversion ends up feeling rather incidental. Even more so given the disapproval of decadent western values as voiced by Olga; the activities of SNOB ought to be reconfirmation for her (whatever Nutski's involvement – after all, he has been corrupted) but instead she comes on board with Steed ("I should like you to know that, despite your peculiar methods, I have come to admire you. A little") and in the final fencing fight (also carried over from the original, just with more striking décor and staging), it’s Emma who’s allowed to emphasise, unchallenged, British superiority:

OlgaWell thrown, comrade. You must have Slavic blood.
Mrs PeelNo, British through and through.
SteedBut you won’t hold that against her.


On the quirky character front, we have J Nathan Winters (Edwin Apps) as the purveyor of quality goods for the gentleman, announcing proudly that "Each and every one of these umbrellas has been rained on from a great height", but again, the obsequiousness towards Steed's class worked better in The Charmers; somehow, admiring his choice of umbrella doesn't quite do it. I liked Steed's parting "Hope it keeps wet for you. Bye". Hubert Merryweather (Timothy Bateson, Binro the Heretic in The Ribos Operation) the chiropodist is quite likable for all his being (partly) on board with activities of SNOB ("Your feet are now in my hands").


SteedThe evening was heavily instructive. But lacking…
Mrs PeelA certain, bourgeois, capitalist, decadent touch?

The opening "We're Needed" finds the words appear on a section of newspaper (it would have been more inspired if the whole front page had been a mock-up), and the coda sees Steed appearing in a Russian hat (very cosy), reporting on an evening with Olga, who we learn is an accomplished bricklayer and can recite every party manifesto since 1922. These ending sequences have been quite variable, but this one, more germane to the story, is one of the more successful of the season so far. Not a remake that in any way justifies its existence, but mostly unobjectionable.

















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