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

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

I have discovered the great ray that first brought life into the world.

Frankenstein (1931)
(SPOILERS) To what extent do Universal’s horror classics deserved to be labelled classics? They’re from the classical Hollywood period, certainly, but they aren’t unassailable titans that can’t be bettered – well unless you were Alex Kurtzman and Chris Morgan trying to fashion a Dark Universe with zero ingenuity. And except maybe for the sequel to the second feature in their lexicon. Frankenstein is revered for several classic scenes, boasts two mesmerising performances, and looks terrific thanks to Arthur Edeson’s cinematography, but there’s also sizeable streak of stodginess within its seventy minutes.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…