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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

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.

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.

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.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.