Skip to main content

Do I look like the Bournemouth Strangler?

The Wrong Box
(1966)

(SPOILERS) In an essay accompanying The Wrong Box’s recent Blu-ray release, Louis Barfe tells how he first saw the film on TV before his family had a VCR, much to his distress. I was luckier in that regard, and as a result it was on regular rotation during the 1980s. An inevitability of such nostalgic attachments is that one becomes somewhat immune to a movie’s failings, but in The Wrong Box’s case I think revisiting it decades later reconfirms what I was always aware of to some extent: that it has numerous delightful distractions, but director Bryan Forbes isn’t able to lend it the focus of a strong through-line.


Indeed, while the contemporary reviews take the film apart much more than it deserves, they do accurately highlight that the best elements are around the edges, and as guided by Forbes, the adaption of Robert Louis Stevenson and his stepson Lloyd Osbourne’s novel (by Americans Larry Gelbart and Burt Shevelove), in which surviving factions of a family fight it out to claim a tontine – an archaic investment scheme – established 63 years before, lacks the sustained zest and energy one might expect. 


There are clear signatures of Kind Hearts and Coronets, most notably in the introductory passage depicting the demises of various tontine members (including Nicholas Parsons, Leonard Rossiter, Jeremy Lloyd and Valentine Dyall), but the substance of the picture relates to mix-ups and mistaken identities, never quite becoming as deliriously farcical as they should be. 


Morris (Peter Cook) and John Finsbury (Dudley Moore) think their uncle Joseph (Ralph Richardson) has expired. So, believing Joseph’s brother Masterman (John Mills) is likely to pop his clogs himself any day now, they decide to delay the announcement in order to claim the tontine themselves. Joseph is not dead, however, and the body they secrete in a barrel is actually that of the Bournemouth Strangler (Tutte Lemkow). 


Michael: Thank you for the tea and cakes. I shall taste them all through my dissection class.

Filling out the line-up of familial players are Masterman’s grandson Michael (Michael Caine) and Joseph’s ward Julia (Nanette Newman, Forbes’ wife); these two become smitten in an amusingly coy, mannered fashion (they live next door to each other but have never spoken until the events in the picture, nor has Michael with Morris and John; Michael and Julia are also not really, and very conveniently, cousins, so can be cheerfully incestuous with each other); Forbes emphasises the period formality and etiquette by flashing up quaint silent era cue cards at intervals (“The Girl He Worships From Afar”). Their mutual joy at the tragic deaths of their parents is perfectly delivered ("My father went missing. He was eaten by his Bible class” as was her mother “They never eat one without the other”; Caine’s were killed in a balloon ascension, which again sounds rather Kind Hears and Coronets). Another nice structural touch is that the scheming parties may cross generations but they are on opposite sides of the family; it’s Masterman who is trying to off the oblivious Joseph.


Morris: Who’s the butler?
Peacock: I have that honour, sir.
Morris: How dare you embrace me!

Amongst these much better-known faces is one who is absolutely hilarious and undeniably steals the entire movie whenever he’s on screen; owing to Wilfrid Lawson’s incredible delivery, Masterman’s butler Peacock sounds as if he’s on the verge of expiring at any moment. One might suggest he sounds as if he was pissed throughout, of which Michael Caine commented that the “ageing alcoholic” was “bombed out of his mind twenty-four hours per day, but he was still one of the most brilliant actors with whom I ever worked”, “that most British actor of them all” as he put it. 


Forbes referred to Lawson as “underestimated, unreliable, uninsurable and supremely gifted”; the actor died of a heart attack less than five months after the picture was release. It isn’t only Lawson’s line readings (“They’d never believe you” says Michael of Peacock volunteering to take the rap for the apparently dead Masterman; “Why not? After all, I haven’t been paid for seven years. Begging your pardon, sir”); his physical performance is a marvel, from his evident distress at Julia playing the piano to a terrified “No…” on seeing Masterman climbing out of a coffin on the back of a hearse.


When I used to watch the film, it was Cook & Moore and Sellers who kept me coming back to it, but this time I was more taken with Richardson’s sublimely self-involved portrait of Joseph, permanently caught up in his own world of dispensing crushingly banal factoids – the one about someone dying in London every 25 seconds being entirely inaccurate – to anyone he can get to listen to him; I was particularly struck by how effortlessly he acts Mills off the screen, the latter coated in old-age makeup doing his hammy best (or worst) to make an impression. The scene in which Masterman repeatedly tries and fails to kill his oblivious brother works entirely because of Richardson’s playing, rather than Mills telegraphing his every action.


Morris: You realise you made me drop my grebe?

That said, there’s much to be enjoyed about Cook and Moore’s presence – their film debut – although the latter is borderline irrelevant to the proceedings and saddled with a sex-mad characterisation that would resurface in his unlikely “sex thimble” burst of Hollywood stardom towards the end of the following decade (Moore said he found Forbes difficult to work with due to his habit of acting out what he wanted Dudley to do for him). Cook gets many of the best lines as an egg-mad conniver, giving it his best display of outward propriety and inward scheming (“Julia! Are you mad? A scream like that might have shattered my eggs!”), and since the value of the tontine is £111k (assuming this is set in approximately 1889, per the novel’s publication date), it’s understandable that he’d be eager to secure £13.8m in today’s money.


Morris: Now, what we need is a venal doctor.

Sellers’ cameo as cat-loving Dr Pratt (“I specialised, you see, in rare malign diseases of the spleen”) came at a point when his Hollywood star was at its height, even if his choices of project were immensely variable; it’s very much a turn, with him donning false nose and a wig, rather than doing or saying anything terribly funny, although his prop acting is amusing (drying hands on one cat and using a kitten, Mervyn, as blotting paper). Less successful, alas, is Tony Hancock’s one-note detective (his last film role).


Peacock: Life is a fraud, Master Michael.

If the majority of the picture is content to amble along pleasantly, Forbes at least ups the pace for the last reel by throwing in a chase, ably supported by John Barry’s irresistibly jaunty score as matters are mixed up with a real funeral procession; Irene Handl (doing RP for a change) gets to be indignant at her fifteen-stone husband’s tiny coffin while Dudley pretends the (wrong) box contained their Yorkshire terrier (“He’d have been fourteen tomorrow”). 


As to the romantic leads – very much not reflected in screen time – Newman may be cast due to nepotism (see also pretty much all Forbes movies), but she seizes on the tone perfectly, and she and Caine have a delightfully ultra-formal chemistry. It’s an atypical part for Caine at this point, having fully taken the opportunity for leads like he might fall out of favour tomorrow, but here he’s part of an ensemble and offering a contrast to the predominately contemporary parts that, post-Zulu, were making his name (also released that year were Alfie, Gambit and Funeral in Berlin). 


Michael: Oh, thank you for pointing out to me how obscene eggs are.

Caine’s take was that The Wrong Box was “so British that it met with a gentle success in most places except Britain, where it was a terrible flop”, and that this was because “it embarrassed them”. His assessment has a flavour of his later period “My homeland doesn’t like me” self-pity; I suspect it’s more likely the picture fell between several stools of the changing fashions of the period, since there were plenty of comedies during the mid-to-late ‘60s that didn’t quite find an audience in the lurch from cosy Ealing to Carry On and then "with-it" fare like The Knack …and How to Get It. The Wrong Box is very likeable, very amiable – and I guess, very British – but it doesn’t invite raves.


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.

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.

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…

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.

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…

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

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.

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.