Skip to main content

Would you care to remark upon the remarkability?

The Avengers
6.4: Split!

The opening teaser can go a long way to cementing an Avengers as a good ‘un in the memory, but it can also be just about all there is to a story. Such is the case with Split! in which, once you’ve seen Mercer (Maurice Good, 1.10: Hunt the Man Down, 3.7: Don’t Look Behind You, The New AvengersForward Base) hear the name Boris, undergo a personality change (the clawed hand!) and shoot his Ministry of Top-Secret Intelligence (the name’s probably the funniest part of the episode) colleague Compton (Iain Anders), it’s pretty clear what’s up. The only variable is quite how science fiction the explanation is, and in this case it’s very.


Steed: What have you done to your hand?
Mercer: A legacy from Berlin, October ’63.
Steed: Really?

Brian Clemens’ quickly-penned teleplay is also not so far from Spock’s Brain in terms of silliness. Boris Kartovski (Steven Scott, 1.13: One for the Mortuary, 1.26: Dragonsfield, 3.13: Second Sight – the name Boris Kartovski also featured in 4.22: A Touch of Brimstone) was shot in the heart by Steed, in 1963 Berlin, but he survived thanks to Dr Constantine’s (Bernard Archard, 4.3: The Master Minds) skills, putting him on ice and perfecting (well, never quite perfecting) the ability to place his mind in another’s body. Scott is good value in a performance that’s all eye movement, and sometimes lascivious eye movement at that, even if he looks a little like Mo out of The Three Stooges


Rooke: Perfect! I am the perfect prototype.

The episode’s structured such that whoever the latest incumbent “Boris” is must kill the one who isn’t “taking” and is becoming a liability. So Mercer is shot by Lord Barnes (Nigel Davenport, 4.21: The Danger Makers) and Barnes by Rooke (Julian Glover). Being Julian Glover, naturally he needs to be a bad guy, although he shoots Barnes while he’s still a good guy. His struggle for control at the climax is a particularly strong little scene, begging Steed to dispose of him (“Kill you old chap? I’d rather cure you”). 


Dr Constantine: He wants you to stand where he can see you. He was always one for a pretty woman. His appetite was remarkable, voracious. And he could be cruel. So cruel.

The mind transference also inserts a rather unpleasant rape subtext, with the prospect of Tara becoming host for Boris. Constantine tells her “You will feel no pain, Miss King, no pain at all. Unless you decided to fight it. Then your pain will be considerable” while, as the process is underway, Tarvovski is mock warned “Boris, don’t forget you’re dealing with a lady. Think some nice thoughts”. Steed saves her, of course (“I can’t promise you’ll play the violin again”), but Hinnell (John G Heller 4.12: Man-Eater of Surrey Green, 5.9: The Correct Way to Kill) contriving to shoot Constantine, the dolt, isn’t the most satisfying of solutions.


Tara: Clearly, he is highly intelligent, Strong weak, happy sad, carefree anxious man.
Steed: Is that a fact?
Tara: No I made it up.

Also dissatisfying is that, while we as the audience are way ahead, everyone else is required to be desperately slow. Since the plot is very linear, with little intrigue, it can only be the method by which the villains are doing what they’re doing that’s a surprise, and it wouldn’t be to anyone who’s seen a few science-fiction shows. Tara’s suspicious of Mercer from the start, stealing his report and getting his handwriting analysed, but it still takes a long time (“Brutal extrovert, man who will stop at nothing is a first-class description of Boris Tarkovski”) to put the pieces together (“I was feeling a bit extrovert” says Lord Barnes on smashing a glass in the fireplace).


Swindin: Wemarkable. Quite Wemarkable. Wemarkably Wemarkable.
Steed: Would you care to remark upon the remarkability?
Swindin: Yes, I would.

Still, Christopher Benjamin (JJ Hooter in 4.14: How to Succeed… At Murder, 5.10: Never, Never Say Die) supplies a reliably eccentric turn in the form of handwriting expert Swindin, and there’s a few nice conceits at the ministry (passes must be shown every ten feet of corridor). On the whole, Split! is a more serious-minded story, Clemens and co taking up the baton from the previous short-lived guard, but those tend to work when there’s some mystery or tension to keep the story going, and this one peters out quickly; the idea was much better applied, and more humorously, in 5.16: Who’s Who?


Tara: For a moment I wondered who had gotten into you.

The coda has Steed doing some amusing mugging of a personality change when getting into his suit (with an accompanying music cue) and providing champagne rather than Tara’s preference of ice, grenadine, sake, crème de Violette, calvados, Devonshire cream and an unripened strawberry.









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.

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

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.

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.