Skip to main content

I shall lead my army into these new worlds and colonise them. My army of astronauts.

The Avengers
6.2: Invasion of the Earthmen

Some have labelled this one of the show’s nadirs, but I really can’t see it. Sure, the episode has many obligatory, patented Terry Nation SF teleplay clichés, including some quite ridiculous logic, it’s fair share of visual clunkers and a patchy quality betraying its troubled production even to those unaware, but for good stretches, Invasion of the Earthmen is a quite serviceable more serious-minded episode, even if that’s in direct contrast to the absurdity of its diabolical mastermind’s scheme.


The disarray of the early sixth season was a direct consequence of Thames sticking its oar in, deeming that the curve towards “heightened” material under Brian Clemens and Albert Fennell needed to be slammed into reverse (Clemens suggests it was about internal politics, since outside boys had been responsible for the company’s greatest hit). The result was – briefly – their exit, and the installation of Blackman era story editor and producer John Bryce; a healthy dose of reality would work wonders for the series’ staying power, was the gist of the theory. 


When Bryce went south, and back came Clemens and Fennell, there was extensive reworking of material shot under his aegis, and of Tara King’s character; like Macnee, the incoming producers thought Thorson was wrong for the part and show (Clemens claimed she hand no sense of humour, which was why Mother was needed; one suspects, in part, his view was quite so unforgiving because she was an element he had no control over). As a consequence, Tara’s capable ingenue, who makes short work of the villain during the meat of the episode, is reduced to someone requiring judo training from Steed in the bookends (and who doffs her blonde “wig” – a “disguise” – to become a brunette when not investigating the space school). 


Brett: You may run anywhere you wish, Miss King. Do try to give them a good chase.

It’s not all positive during the Alpha Academy scenes, though. While Tara is remarkably resourceful at eluding her captors, and overcomes threats involving very fake-looking boa constrictors, scorpions (it looks more convincing in that photo), spiders and boulders, she contrastingly reacts in markedly terrified fashion when faced with a few sewer rats and screams when she falls down a slide your average child at a playground would have no problem with. That said, while one might point to the obviously fake threats as black marks, they’re really no greater impediments to enjoyment than the now customary recourse to obvious studio stand-ins for outdoor sequences and Macnee’s undisguised stunt doubles. 


Added to which, the manner in which Brigadier Brett (William Lucas, Range in Frontios, 5.17: Death’s Door) sets his students on Tara could be seen as a prelude to later murderous delights such as A Clockwork Orange and Battle Royale. In terms of the show itself, it echoes both 4.25: A Sense of History (young upstarts) and 5.12: The Superlative Seven (a hunt to the death), with a hint of The Prisoner’s Dance of the Dead as Tara flees the mob.


Brett: Everyone you meet is an enemy and so must be destroyed.

In those terms, the mustard-yellow tops of the Alphas could be seen as a swipe at the “virtuous” fascism of Gene Roddenberry’s bright and aspirant future (as long as it’s the Federation way, it’s acceptable for the universe). Their numbers include future Dim Warren Clarke and future Survivor Lucy Fleming (showing a particularly sadistic streak) as well as Christian Roberts (To Sir With Love, Dr Renor in Blake’s 7’s Breakdown, UFO’s The Long Sleep) and Chris Chittell (The Tomorrow People). 


The subplot in which Huxton (Roberts) and Bassin (Chittell) are sent out on night survival (a “seek and destroy” assignment – “Only one of you must return”) is a baffling piece of Nation plotting, since it means a minimum of half of all trainees won’t survive the Academy (and such culling of candidates would inevitably attract unwanted attention). It’s nevertheless also effectively grim in sensibility. There’s no sudden discovery of gratitude or humanity when Tara warns Huxton of an attempt on his life; he proceeds to let fly an arrow at her. And her being carried off aloft by her captors is suggestive of a sacrificial rite rather than a precisely trained military unit.


Brett: This is the future, Miss King. The new worlds of space hanging like ripe plums in the sky waiting for the first men who have the courage to snatch them.

The more overtly SF elements may not stand up to much scrutiny, but the “humpty dumpty” spaceman suit is a suitably bizarre inclusion that strikes just the right blend of silly and surreal. Brett’s scheme, though… He plans to allow the East and West to strike out and explore new worlds and then, taking advantage of their technological development, “I shall lead my army into these new worlds and colonise them. My army of astronauts”. To do this, he needs to wage war on other space explorers, “To wipe them out, Miss King. I will invade the new territories out there while the world makes formal protests and looks to the rule books”. If this doesn’t exhibit a slender enough grip on feasibility, when Tara comments that it will take fifty years to reach that point (secret space programmes allowing), he shows her his advances in cryobiology, whereby eighty students (presumably all victors of night survival training) have been frozen at their physical peak. Hopefully they’ll be successfully thawed out.


Steed: I’m afraid I’m in the Civil Service now.
Brett: Yes, it does happen.

As mentioned, there aren’t a great number of laughs here. Steed’s introduction to Brett has its moments, noting he was once in the military but is now a civil servant, and introducing Tara as his wife… his secondthat is, explaining the seventeen-year-old son prospectively joining the Academy. Avoiding a mantrap, Steed observes, “That’s no way to catch rabbits”. Brett remarks on the deficiencies of boa constrictors, which are “incurably lazy after a meal. The boa constrictor Mr Grant encountered will sleep for at least another three weeks” (Grant, an old colleague of Steed set upon in the teaser, played by George Roubicek, Hopper in The Tomb of the Cybermen, as well an Imperial Officer in Star Wars and Luke in 2.21: The White Dwarf). 


As far as Steed is concerned, this is really more of a Tara showcase (appropriately enough, being Thorson’s first filmed episode). They (unwisely) split up as soon as they arrive on the grounds, after which the lion’s share of the action goes to her, before they converge once more in the tunnel (which offers a series of – unconvincing – tests to find the student’s greatest fear; in that respect, it’s not dissimilar to Vengeance on Varos’ rather underwhelming televised ordeals) and lock their pursuers in. 


TaraWhat will it be? A quite tête-à-tête? Dinner in the country? A ride in the park?
SteedPractice?

Macnee’s doing everything required, and looking very trim (he lost two stone between seasons), but there’s a pervading sense this just isn’t right; Tara’s more like a Doctor Who assistant to Steed’s mentor, ironic given Thorson’s insistence it should be obvious she and Steed were having a sexual relationship. Of which, the cues are just that bit too unsubtle, including Miss King (the only episode Steed addresses her this way) coming to the bedroom door in a hyper-short dressing gown. Her being all eyes for him is faintly embarrassing, and the sight of him showing up sans tie reeks of past-it old guy trying to get down with the kids. There was never a hint of such desperation with Mrs Peel. 


Which rather means that the episodes in the final season are altogether more successful when they aren’t trying to kindle something for which there’s no real spark (usually in the bookends). When the Avengers are doing their avenging, the season is an oft-underrated one, but I don’t really want to know what kind of practice Steed had in mind with Tara in the coda. Certainly not brushing up on her judo.









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.

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.

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.

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…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

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

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.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.