Skip to main content

Deduction, Steed, deduction.

The Avengers
6.3: The Curious Case of the Countless Clues

Like Invasion of the Earthmen, this is a John Bryce-produced episode, and like Invasion of the Earthmen, it’s rather underrated. The Curious Cast of the Countless Clues includes its own heightened element amid the seriousness in the shape of Sir Arthur Doyle (Peter Jones, the Voice of the Book, of course, and previously Dr Adams in 4.17: The Thirteenth Hole) and a plot that plays out like a rather more feasible version of 5.21: You Have Just Been Murdered, also written by Philip Levene, with a couple of enterprisingly disreputable types, Gardiner (Kenneth Hopkirk Cope, 5.3: The Bird Who Knew Too Much) and Earle (Anthony Bate, the recently recovered 1.20: Tunnel of Fear), extorting the rich for art treasures thanks to elaborately set up blackmailing schemes.


I haven’t mentioned the Season Six opening titles yet. Only the less-than-innovative end ones on The Forget-Me-Knot, dropped in favour of more conservative but somehow appropriate shuffling cards. I think I might prefer these to the iconic Rigg-Macnee ones of the previous season, not that we’d have the latter without the former, but the decision to go for exteriors makes it pop more, while the addition of the armour motif only adds – if that were possible – to the prevailing Anglo-eccentric element of the show, and in a good way.


Dawson: But, who’s been murdered?
Earle: You, sir.

The teaser sequence for Curious Case is absolutely one of the series’ best, showing us Gardiner and Earle, to all intents and purposes detectives investigating a murder scene, complete with chalked body silhouette on the carpet (“A brutal killing”: “Oh, dastardly, sir”). They reel off all the clues that might point to the killer’s identity before Dawson (Ronald Jessup, Servant in The Massacre, Lord Savar in The Invasion of Time), the flat’s occupant, returns and is promptly shot dead, falling neatly into the chalk outline (presumably to be subsequently removed by the perpetrators, or it would look rather odd). As Earle later explains to Flanders, since crime never pays “I have turned a drawback into a virtue. I have made you a murderer”.


Sir Arthur Doyle: Deduction, Steed, deduction.
Steed: (holding up a hair removed from Sir Arthur’s coat) I see you’ve changed your secretary. The last one was brunette. Deduction, Sir Arthur, deduction.

Jones is perfectly cast as Sir Arthur Doyle (Steed: He’s kind of a…. I really must ask him), taking the Baker Street detective’s methods that bit too literally, at the expense of accompanying intuition or hunches. Steed, in contrast is instantly suspicious that the murderer is so incredibly careless where it counts (to have left everything behind, clues-wise, barring his name and address); the only actual suspicious coincidence that is unintentional in Levene’s plot is that Steed should be acquainted with both parties Earle and Gardiner choose to blackmail, but I suppose it reflects the gentleman spy’s circulation in a rarefied social stratum. Sir Arthur, meanwhile, blithely assumes his science is unswerving (“Ah, if they didn’t make mistakes, we’d never catch them, would we?”)


Sir Arthur Doyle: We can’t send a policeman to one of our leading cabinet ministers to ask “What were you doing between the hours of ten and twelve last night?” It comes better if it is from a friend. Mmmm. A casual inquiry. From an old friend. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

The blackmail cases play out with due tension as Sir William Burgess (George A Cooper, Cherub in The Smugglers, 2.21: The White Dwarf) first capitulates to demands for a Horsborough but draws the line when Earle asks for another and states a preference to face the music. It’s a good scene (“Start with a blackmailer. You never stop him”), and even Sir Arthur arriving to make heavy weather of reading Sir William his rights (“Oh come on, Arthur”) fails to blunt its impact.


Flanders (Edward de Souza, 2.25: Six Hands Across The Table) is the next to be preyed upon thanks to stolen incriminating circumstantial evidence (a button, a handkerchief, a gun). Also in on their scheme is Stanley, played by renowned cockney hard-man Tony Selby (Glitz in The Trial of A Time Lord and Dragonfire, Ace Of Wands), on hand to repair Flanders’ car and offer an alibi or none at all, depending on his willingness to provide Valdescos to order.


Steed: I hope you’re not suggesting…
Sir Arthur Doyle: Oh, of course not. No indeed. Not enough evidence. Just the same, old chap, if you could have a discreet word with Flanders. Find out where he was between three and four o’clock yesterday. Be awfully grateful.

This plot finds Steed’s dalliance with Flanders’ sister Janice (Tracy Reed, Dr Strangelove, Casino Royale, UFO and You Must Be Joking! amongst many others) drawn upon by Sir Arthur; I was particularly amused by his refraining from suggesting anything sordid, not out of decorum or etiquette but because there’s “Not enough evidence”. Notably, Tara also shows stirrings of jealousy at the mention of an old flame. 


Steed: Just lock your doors, bolt your windows and don’t move until I get there.

As with Earthmen, the Tara plotline ultimately makes good. For reasons unknown, she’s laid up with a sprained ankle, so required to do home detection work. She comes into her own in the third-act Rear Window scenario, where, with the villains now having Steed in their sights and Tara as his victim, they turn up at her flat intent on murder (“Do you know, I didn’t fancy the others, but Miss King”). While this is set up as Steed needing to come to her rescue (by way of slamming gangster Selby’s head under a bonnet to get him to squeal), it turns out she doesn’t need very much at all, Steed required only to repel a fleeing Gardiner after she shoots Earle. The sequence is effectively staged by Don Sharp, segueing from the big screen (notably Christopher Lee Fu Manchu films and Our Man in Marrakesh) and a double reminder with Earthmen that the show can muster straightforward tension when it so chooses.


Steed: Do you suppose that when Eve approached Adam on that creative day, he said “Not ripe yet”?
Tara: So that’s the way you view the situation? A sort of Garden of Eden.
Steed: Well, you must admit, they look very attractive. Never mind, here is something that’s been ripening since… 1957.

While Steed and Tara work effectively solo, there’s continued unease over their domestic bliss. You can’t help feel Macnee isn’t so keen on the forwardness of the relationship, such that the above exchange finds him only too willing to shrug off the innuendo. His hanging out at Tara’s apartment waiting for phone calls just seems… well, not exactly indecent, but certainly nothing to be proud of. The coda at least eschews such business, concentrating on a delicate operation to mend Steed’s bowler (“The first ever brim graft”) accompanied by the news that Tara’s ankle is fully mended.









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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.