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.

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.

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…

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.

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

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

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.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

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.