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

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013)
(SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

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…

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.

I am you, and you are me, and we are here. I am the dreamer. You are the dream.

Communion (1989)
(SPOILERS) Whitley Strieber’s Communion: A True Story was published in 1987, at which point the author (who would also pen Communion’s screenplay) had seen two of his novels adapted for the cinema (Wolfen and The Hunger), so he could hardly claim ignorance of the way Hollywood – or filmmaking generally – worked. So why then, did he entrust the translation of a highly personal work, an admission of/ confrontation with hidden demons/ experiences, to the auteur who unleashed Howling II and The Marsupials: Howling III upon an undeserving world? The answer seems to be that Strieber already knew director Philippe Mora, and the latter was genuinely interested in the authors’ uncanny encounters. Which is well and good and honourable, but the film entirely fails to deliver the stuff of cinematic legend. Except maybe in a negative sense.

Strieber professes dismay at the results, citing improvised scenes and additional themes, and Walken’s rendition of Whitley Strieber, protagonist…

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “They take these absurd stories and make them too serious”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.

So you made contact with the French operative?

Atomic Blonde (2017)
(SPOILERS) Well, I can certainly see why Focus Features opted to change the title from The Coldest City (the name of the graphic novel from which this is adapted). The Coldest City evokes a noirish, dour, subdued tone, a movie of slow-burn intrigue in the vein of John Le Carré. Atomic Blonde, to paraphrase its introductory text, is not that movie. As such, there’s something of a mismatch here, of the kind of Cold War tale it has its roots in and the furious, pop-soaked action spectacle director David Leitch is intent on turning it into. In the main, his choices succeed, but the result isn’t quite the clean getaway of his earlier (co-directed) John Wick.

He did it. He shut down the Earth.

Escape from L.A. (1996)
(SPOILERS) It seems it was Kurt Russell’s enthusiasm for his most iconic character (no, not Captain Ron) that got Escape from L.A. made. That makes sense, because there’s precious little evidence here that John Carpenter gave two shits. This really was his point of no return, I think. His last great chance to show his mettle. But lent a decent-sized budget (equivalent to five times that of Escape from New York) he squandered it, delivering an inert TV movie that further rubs salt in the wound by operating as a virtual remake of the original. Just absent any of the wit, atmosphere, pace and inspiration.

I’m not the Jedi I should be.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)
(SPOILERS) Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is the only series entry (thus far) I haven’t seen at the cinema. After the first two prequels I felt no great urgency, and it isn’t an omission I’d be hugely disposed to redress for (say) a 12-hour movie marathon, were such a thing held in my vicinity. In the bare bones of Revenge of the Sith, however,George Lucas has probably the strongest, most confident of all Star Wars plots to date.

This is, after all, the reason we have the prequels in the first place; the genesis of Darth Vader, and the confrontation between Anakin and Obi Wan. That it ends up as a no more than middling movie is mostly due to Lucas’ gluttonous appetite for CGI (continuing reference to its corruptive influence is, alas, unavoidable here). But Episode III is also Exhibit A in a fundamental failure of casting and character work; this was the last chance to give Anakin Skywalker substance, to reveal his potential …