Skip to main content

Welcome, to Nightmare Alley.

The Avengers
17: Death’s Door

By this point, it goes without saying that, with Sidney Hayers calling the shots, Death's Door is very stylish, which is an enormous boon to the dream sequences, taking a conscious leaf out of Spellbound's book for how to do these things; if Too Many Christmas Trees previously plundered the manipulated mental state in not wholly dissimilar fashion, Philip Levene ensures this one keeps ticking along, with a proper howdunnit for Steed and Emma to solve.


Sir AndrewI can't go in. If I do, I'll be killed.

The British delegates at a vital European peace conference (more than that, a United Europe was Sir Andrew's idea!) are getting cold feet, refusing to enter the all-important Conference Room. First is Sir Andrew (Clifford Boyd), beset by premonitory dreams, minor details of the day that come true – such as Steed needing to be careful on Spout Hill, a man with a missing button, and a lion – and which suggest, if they are correct, the death foretold will be also. The lion (made of marble) is revealed after Sir Andrew has been hit by a car, having taken off in terror at the prospect of his demise. 


Next, it's the turn of his replacement, Lord Melford (Allan Cuthbertson, 1.24: The Deadly Air, 4.5: Death at Bargain Prices) to get cold feet, seeing visions of a crashing chandelier spelling curtains when he enters the room. 


Hayers conjures some particularly memorable imagery, using varying frame rates and the blank expanse of the studio/warehouse set to create a stark impression; mobs of faceless reporters congregate around Melford, there’s an intrusive moustachioed man greeting him at the door, and press attaché Stapley (William Lucas, Range in Frontios) revealing a cut to his cheek. Announcements of "He's dead. Melford’s dead" further add to the barrage. And the ticking off of events - lift out of order, truck crate, cyclist swerving, machine guns, pneumatic drills – in real life add to the unsettling effect. 


SteedThe incidents were rigged to fit your dream.
MelfordAnd what about the dream itself? How could you rig a dream?Unless you know a way of getting into a man's mind?

With any elaborate ruse such as this, the more precision-engineered it has to be, the less ultimately believable it usually is. So, if the reveal isn't especially likely – there’s a warehouse full of props ("Welcome, to Nightmare Alley") inflicted upon Melford in a susceptible, drug-induced state – it just about gets a pass (although, both Steed and Emma finding their way to it thanks to goons going around with key chains giving the address is pretty unforgivable). One might suggest Stapley really should have been more careful than to place himself in a dream, since the realisation they are faked can lead to only one possible conclusion, but I guess one can put that down to villainous hubris. 


SteedThey manifest a dream out of reality, then still using reality, they started to make the dream come true. To scare you, to stop you ever going through that conference room door.

As with the previous episode, a series more generally identified for its frivolously breezy/whacky qualities by this point marks itself out with an excellent suspense sequence halfway through an episode, as Steed tracks down Albert Becker (Marne Maitlan), an official observer from the Eastern bloc – the moustachioed man from Melford’s dream – and promptly becomes the subject of his target practice. It's an extended piece, played out almost in real time, as Becker closes in on the Avenger hiding behind fencing, Steed using practical, MacGyver ingenuity to devise a means for Becker's demise.


Mrs PeelYou know my wavelength?
SteedI do indeed.

Also appearing are Dr Evans (Paul Dawkins, 1.17: Death on the Slipway, 3.5: Death a La Carte), Peter Thomas (4.18: Small Game for Big HuntersThe Savages). Alas, ABC decreed no more "We're neededs" or two-line intros from this point, the spoilsports (something about ad breaks), and that the more overt wackiness on the rise be toned down, but we still have the codas, this time with Emma predicting a night out at the theatre ("You must have second sight. I did get a couple of tickets"), but only because she swiped Steed's tickets ("Shall we go? I’d hate to miss the curtain").






















Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

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.

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.