Skip to main content

I love robbing the English, they're so polite.

A Fish Called Wanda
(1988)

(SPOILERS) It’s probably fair to suggest A Fish Called Wanda was the last time John Cleese felt he had something to prove creatively. Certainly, the belated "sequel" Death Fish II/ Fierce Creatures seemed designed to squander the massive amount of good will its predecessor engendered. Post-Python (and Fawlty Towers) he'd become better known for having his head examined and profiting from the world of corporate training videos than building on his comedic legacy. His one stab at headlining a production, Clockwise, had met with mild success at home but complete indifference everywhere else, and he was only showing up there as a performer. So the challenge he set himself, to break the difficult US market and pass himself off as a romantic lead, was no small one.


There might have been a degree of competitive spirt too. Michael Palin's career as an actor was doing very nicely, Terry Jones had written and directed movies (for Hollywood!) and Terry Gilliam had reinvented himself as a bone fide auteur. Cleese had rather been left behind by the '80s. And then he promptly made unparalleled success look easy. Some of his choices were curious – his loyalty to Charles Crichton, with whom he’d first discussed a collaboration in the '60s, was admirable, but the director was in his late 70s by this point, and very much notof the hyperactive Ridley Scott disposition. When Cleese talks admiringly of Crichton's economy of shooting, what he's really saying is the director had an old-school style (long takes, limited coverage) that more informed the "Ealing comedy" label bestowed upon Wanda than its actual content.


Indeed, Wanda isn't a remotely stylish movie, cinematographer Alan Hume only adding to the no-frills look (no one goes on about the great photography on Supergirl, A View to a Kill or even Return of the Jedi). It’s also burdened by an ultra-cheesy sax-ridden score from John Du Prez (I do like his robbery theme, though).


But the script and cast are the main thing with a comedy – if the score was make or break for the genre, few '80s movies would pass muster – and Cleese's choices here can't be faulted. Making capital from the Anglo-American culture clash of the Waldorf Salad episode of Fawlty Towers, much of the comedy derives from the innate antagonism of Kevin Kline's "true vulgarian" ex-CIA agent Otto towards anything British, frequently personified by Michael Palin's stuttering animal rights activist Ken and Cleese's barrister Archie Leach. 


Cleese knows exactly how to pay off the grief they receive at Otto's hands, in Archie's case via a tirade of Americana-related abuse (most of it centring on their performance in Vietnam). For Ken, it's the rather more prosaic but very satisfying flattening Otto receives by steamroller as revenge for the latter eating the former's goldfish (the steamroller was Crichton's contribution to the plot – it's unclear how much else was, although he gets a story credit, and he and Cleese were meeting regularly to work on the script from 1983 onwards).


The other main winning ingredient is humour borne of violence, most particularly – although we also see it in Otto beating up Archie with a bedpan and ramming chips up Ken's nose – Ken's attempts to off Patrica Hayes' robbery witness and succeeding only, much to his chagrin, in killing her dogs (until the final flattening induces a heart attack). Cleese cites Palin's innate likeability as the reason Ken could get away with all this (that and establishing Hayes as unlikable), an ingredient Gilliam had played off a few years earlier in Brazil (to chilling effect). 


Kline bagged a Best Supporting Actor Oscar, of course (Crichton was nominated twice, for his directing and the screenplay; such recognition eluded him in his heyday), and rightly so. He's certainly never been so mesmerising a screen presence since, tending to the slightly wet or ineffectual (perhaps it's the tache that does it? He's also got one in I Love You to Death, Soapdish and French Kiss, and he's on fine comic form in all three). Jamie Lee Curtis asserted that Kline took all his mannerisms from Jeff Goldblum, which she didn't think went down all that well with the actor.



Then there's Curtis herself as Wanda, making the nearly two-decade age difference between her and Cleese seeming nothing especially disconcerting and displaying easy comic timing, particularly in her interactions with Kline (that may be a transatlantic rapport thing; Cleese's best chemistry is with Maria Aitken as his withering wife Wendy). Cleese has talked about how they undertook reshoots (at Robert Towne's suggestion) to beef up the "true" romance between Archie and Wanda, and how a key to selling her attraction to him was having them laugh together (Cleese does have an explosively funny laugh), but I didn't find myself fully buying her devotion to him, at least on this revisit. Also, the way Archie went off without a thought for leaving his daughter behind did stand out (Cleese observes on the commentary that no one’s ever concerned about this). 


Always nice to see Ken "should have been the Seventh Doctor" Campbell, and Tom Georgeson deserves particular credit for being the only member of the team you can actually see as a halfway believable bank robber (his "Un-be-fucking-lievable!" is only eclipsed by "You fucking bitch!" when Wanda digs him an inescapable hole in the courtroom).


I tend to vacillate over the degree to which I think A Fish Called Wanda is a classic. Maybe it depends on my mood. This time (and it must be more than a decade since I last saw it), I didn't think it quite reached that pinnacle. Everything with Palin and Kline (and Aitken) works like gangbusters, but the romance itself, and Cleese as a less pro-active lead, overly obsessed with his own middle-class reserve, tends to make the rest only solid; notably, when Cleese and Palin finally share a scene together the results are absolute dynamite, and you want to kick him for not pairing them up earlier. All the same, this remains legitimately one of the best British comedies of the last forty years, and still one of the most successful (unless you're Richard Curtis, next to nothing comes close internationally).



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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

You are, by your own admission, a vagabond.

Doctor Who Season 10 - Worst to Best
Season 10 has the cachet of an anniversary year, one in which two of its stories actively trade on the past and another utilises significant elements. As such, it’s the first indication of the series’ capacity for slavishly indulging the two-edged sword that is nostalgia, rather than simply bringing back ratings winners (the Daleks). It also finds the show at its cosiest, a vibe that had set in during the previous season, which often seemed to be taking things a little too comfortably. Season 10 is rather more cohesive, even as it signals the end of an era (with Jo’s departure). As a collection of stories, you perhaps wouldn’t call it a classic year, but as a whole, an example of the Pertwee UNIT era operating at its most confident, it more than qualifies.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

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. That doesn’t mea…

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ (or Zootopia as our American cousins refer to it; the European title change being nothing to do with U2, but down to a Danish zoo, it seems, which still doesn’t explain the German title, though) creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). It’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

So credit’s due to co-directors Byron Howard (Bolt, Tangled) and Rich Moore (of The Simpsons, Futurama, and latterly, the great until it kind of rests on its laurels Wreck-It-Ralph) and Jared Bush (presumably one of the th…

You can’t keep the whole world in the dark about what’s going on. Once they know that a five-mile hunk of rock is going to hit the world at 30,000 miles per hour, the people will want to know what the hell we intend to do about it.

Meteor (1979)
(SPOILERS) In which we find Sean Connery – or his agent, whom he got rid of subsequent to this and Cuba – showing how completely out of touch he was by the late 1970s. Hence hitching his cart to the moribund disaster movie genre just as movie entertainment was being rewritten and stolen from under him. He wasn’t alone, of course – pal Michael Caine would appear in both The Swarm and Beyond the Poseidon Adventure during this period – but Meteor’s lack of commercial appeal was only accentuated by how functional and charmless its star is in it. Some have cited Meteor as the worst movie of his career (Christopher Bray in his book on the actor), but its sin is not one of being outright terrible, rather of being terminally dull.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

You keep a horse in the basement?

The ‘Burbs (1989)
(SPOILERS) The ‘Burbs is Joe Dante’s masterpiece. Or at least, his masterpiece that isn’t his bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you masterpiece Gremlins 2: The New Batch, or his high profile masterpiece Gremlins. Unlike those two, the latter of which bolted out of the gate and took audiences by surprise with it’s black wit subverting the expected Spielberg melange, and the first which was roundly shunned by viewers and critics for being absolutely nothing like the first and waving that fact gleefully under their noses, The ‘Burbs took a while to gain its foothold in the Dante pantheon. 

It came out at a time when there had been a good few movies (not least Dante’s) taking a poke at small town Americana, and it was a Tom Hanks movie when Hanks was still a broad strokes comedy guy (Big had just made him big, Turner and Hooch was a few months away; you know you’ve really made it when you co-star with a pooch). It’s true to say that some, as with say The Big Lebowski, “got it” on fi…

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.

Well, if we destroy Kansas the world may not hear about it for years.

Diamonds are Forever (1971)
In conception, Diamonds are Forever was a retreat to safer ground for the series following the “failure” of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. In the end, it proved to be a significant break in tone and humour from what had gone before. More playfulness was evident in the heightened characterisations and settings, but simultaneously more boundaries were pushed in terms of sex and violence. Las Vegas lends the film a tarnished, glitterball quality that would quite accurately predict the excess and decadence of the coming decade. And presiding over the proceedings was a greying Bond, somewhat gone to seed and looking noticeably older than the near-decade it was since his first appearance. Somehow, the result is as sparkling and vital as the diamonds of the title, but it is understandably a curate’s egg. In many respects it bears more resemblance to the camp affectations, eccentricities and quirks of the television series The Avengers than the more straightforward…