Skip to main content

I think it’s time I consulted my aggresso-therapist.

The Avengers
6.8: My Wildest Dream

Philip Levene’s teleplay is translated effectively to screen by former production designer Robert Fuest, in his, er first, for the show, but the director can’t rescue the back half of the story, which entirely fizzles. Written for the John Bryce regime, My Wildest Dream’s serious tone and corresponding lack of eccentric insulation shows unflatteringly, but it can boast a formidable guest star in Peter Vaughn, clearly enjoying himself.


The element of living one’s murderous fantasies vicariously – and then not so much – was touched upon in a broader and more satisfying fashion with Quite, Quite Fantastic Incorporated in 4.26: Honey for the Prince. Fuest takes the idea and really ups the horror angle of patients committing murder in a fantasy (on a dummy with the face of a business colleague, complete with Psycho-esque frenzied stabbing) only to discover they have done it for real. As with last season’s The Hidden Tigger, but in more straight-faced fashion, the most obvious suspect is only indirectly responsible, his technique used to adverse ends by an underling (Susan Travers’ Nurse Owen). Although, she’s actually acting at the behest of Tobias (Derek Godfrey), sitting on the Board of Acme Precision Combine and bumping off his co-directors (at one point, he succeeds at the old misdirection routine, killing Philip Madoc’s Slater “in self-defence” after it appears the latter has come to kill him).


Jaeger: If you’re trying to say that I’m an unqualified quack, then technically, legally, I would have to agree with you. But to suggest that I “dabble”. That is quite untrue.

Jaeger (Vaughn, perhaps surprisingly his only appearance in the series, but you name it, he was in it, most recently Game of Thrones) is the biggest boon of the early part of the episode, brandishing an eccentric Germanic accent as an “aggresso-therapist”, all the better to add to his psychiatric credentials. Although, he admits, in an effective sequence where Steed arrives to investigate, to pretty much everything he had been accused of, turning the tables without even realising it; yes, he isn’t a real doctor (except of law), and yes, both murderers were patients with whom he was working to exact a catharsis (“Killing in fantasy. That is my technique”); the patient “lives out his wildest dream”.


Steed: We’re being called as unimpeachable witnesses.
Tara: Are you unimpeachable?
Steed: Well, that’s beside the point.

Unfortunately, much of the rest has little hook. Tobias isn’t very interesting, and the method of making Steed witness to the murders is about as inept as villains get (“When we picked him as an ideal witness, I didn’t think. I never thought he’d get this close”). Edward Fox is the Hon Teddy Chilcott, who at least has a more age-appropriate thing for Tara, but is consequently put out by sugar-daddy Steed, for whom she only has eyes. This leads to several laboured comedy routines in which Steed arrives to take her to the ballet (really away from Teddy’s attentions) or slides down her pole to punt Teddy away from her (after he refuses to believe she overpowered him fairly, so uses unfair means to try to secure a date with her). We’re expected to believe this is sufficient cause for him to fantasise about killing Steed, and from there to be used as his potential assassin. It’s all a bit thin, and given how Teddy has been established as entirely useless, not remotely dramatically sustained. 


Gibbons: It’s a dream! It’s all a dream! It’s a… It’s a dream.

It’s curious seeing Fox here, though, reminding us that even at this point he was just a jobbing actor (younger brother James was doing better in the movies; Edward wouldn’t hit a home run lead until Day of the Jackal five years later). Madoc essays his sixth and final Avengers appearance (2.7: The Decapod, 2.25: Six Hands Across a Table, 2.10: Death of a Batman, 5.9: The Correct Way to Kill), not a large one, but both he and Murray Hayne (Gibbons) effectively convey the horrified realisation that they have committed murder for real (the latter, rather unfortunately, toppling from a balcony when Steed and Tara arrive just too late). John Savident (Egrorian in Orbit, The Squire in The Visitation – what a waste of an actor that one was – the auctioneer in Hudson Hawk and Lord Chiswick in Jeeves and Wooster, to name less than a handful) is another board member and victim.


Steed: I keep thinking I’m a horse. Well, it distresses my friends terribly. I’m given to cantering across the quiet room of my club.

Steed gets to explain he’s a horse in order to get an appointment with Jaeger (“Well, I don’t want to be cured. But do you know anyone who’d like to buy a bale or two of hay?”), much to the latter’s delight (“Highly amusing. Oh yes, highly amusing… And this looks like an interesting case. So, you think you’re a horse, eh?”: “Not often, but around derby day, I do get a slight twinge in my fetlocks”).


The coda finds Steed in confessional mode on Tara’s couch, explaining how he’d sneak a large glass of soda water from his father’s study every night (he felt deprived because he preferred lemonade). Quite in contrast to his craving for champagne, of which “Because. I happen to like it”. Problem solved. Not the funniest of finishes, although one might infer it’s representative of the producers’ (or just Clemens’) suspicion of psychology when taken in combination with Jaeger’s methods.










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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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