Skip to main content

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers
5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable

With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.


Doctor Who went there with Planet of the Giants in 1964 and Irwin Allen based a whole series in Land of the Giants, while Fantastic Voyage miniaturised to a more extreme degree in '66. I wonder if the greater informant of this one being dusted off was the Incredible Shrinking Master episode I Dream of Jeannie that aired in the first quarter of '67. It has to be said that, while there's nothing quite as indelible here as Larry Hagman being menaced by a giant cat (although Nicholas Courtney's daft crash helmet does rather burn itself on the retina), the episode rattles along pleasantly enough.


ChiversSir Gerald's been delayed.
RushtonDelayed?
ChiversAbsolutely weighed down with a load of rubbish.
RushtonRubbish?
ChiversBureaucratic rubbish.


The villainy is strictly low rent, though, courtesy of Dr Chivers (Francis Matthews, 4.17: The Thirteenth Hole) attempting to sell secrets – and later, a new shrinking ray created by Professor Rushton (Noel Howlett) – to bumbling Russian Brodny-type Shaffer (Ronald Radd, 2.8: Bullseye, 3.23: The Outside-In Man). 


Chivers' methods in aid of a quick buck are alarmingly casual, from putting Sir Gerald (Kevin Stoney, The Daleks' Master PlanInvasionRevenge of the CybermenAnimalsHostage) in a shoebox and dumping him in the trash, to washing poor Gifford (Courtney, 2.5: Propellant 23) down a drain. Later, when a shrunk Mrs Peel goes missing, the response is a casual "Forget it, we can spray the whole grounds later".


Mrs PeelI better be getting into my rifling Rushton's desk kit.

Indeed, little of Philip Levene's plot stands up to scrutiny, probably hoping that the over-sized sets will distract our attention. Which they do, for the most part. Mrs Peel isn't doing an awful lot during the first half, such that I wondered if this was a symptom of her imminent exit of the show, particularly since Jane Merrow (as Susan, Rushton's daughter; she was also in The Schizoid Man, and apparently Patrick McGoohan liked her, which is high praise indeed) was screen-tested for her replacement. 


SchaefferWonderful vehicle, doctor. How are you going to move it? In your raincoat pocket?

Accordingly, the bulk of the shrinkage concerns Steed, who finds his way into the prototype Saracen SV7 armoured car before its reduced in scale (so Chivers can pass it to Schaeffer). Quite why Steed go to look at the SV7 when it's on display isn't clear, apart from enabling him to find the miniature Rolls sitting on it. We're introduced to the most expensive set, Shaeffer's desktop, at just past the halfway mark, and inevitably have to keep returning to it to make good use of the phone (also scene prior to Courtney's demise, which comes by way of action man hands). 


Mrs PeelI'm not sure I shouldn't keep you like this. After all, it's one way to bag a man.

Quips abound when Emma locates her diminutive colleague ("Tell me, Steed, is everything to scale?": Fnar) but it isn't a very good episode for her self-esteem, since she's mistaken for Susan and very easily kidnapped, and then rather carelessly gets shrunk at about the same time Steed is reconstituted. Steed meanwhile shows his penmanship skills, making a remarkable impact on the fragile ankles of heavies (one of whom is engrossed in Jane Austen's Emma).


SteedWell, I must say, Mrs Peel, the pen is mightier than the sword.
Mrs PeelWell, between us, we've written them off.

He also has to avoid the stench of Shaeffer's now excessively large cigar. There are some nice moments with the latter earlier, who is struggling to impress his peers by demanding random medals be pinned to his chest ("For bravery! Conspicuous bravery!"), leading to bemused queries ("What lovely medals. Is that for… endurance? Crimean War? You’re very well preserved"). Richard Leech (2.13: Traitor in Zebra, 3.18: Dressed to Kill) also appears, as an unlikely colonel. 

  
Ending with Steed wistfully considering things that could be reduced in size ("Miniskirts": "Wishful thinking, I'm afraid") and handing Emma a tiny brolly, Mission… is an agreeable end to the season, but like much of it, it fails to quite go that extra distance Season Four did; its content stands out less than its switch to colour.
























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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.