Skip to main content

A distillation designed to eliminate the George Washington syndrome.

The Avengers
6.14: False Witness

Season Six has found something approaching form over the past four or five episodes. You wouldn’t mistake them for peak-Avengers fare, but they’ve hit a certain groove, especially since Mother has joined as regular. False Witness is a story played mostly straight, and succeeds on those terms, yet its (absurd) premise – a drug that compels the victim to respond to “yes” as “no” and “no” as “yes” and any variations of the same – could easily have been played entirely for laughs. Notably too, it’s another Jeremy Burnham teleplay, who earlier took to the series like a duck to water with You’ll Catch Your Death.


Edgefield: Seems your little bird is reluctant to sing.

The teaser of agent Penman (Peter Jesson) apparently being duped by colleague Melville (Barry Warren, 4.6: Too Many Christmas Trees) into thinking no one is returning has he searches the flat of Lord Edgefield (William Job, 4.12: Man-Eater of Surrey Green) is an effective and intriguing one, since Edgefield’s chauffeur Brayshaw (John Atkinson) shows up and starts taking pot-shots at him (the parking garage looks very like the one from the opening of The Prisoner). This leads to one dead Penman, but not before he’s warned Tara that Melville is a traitor, and given her the microfilm he denies was taken to back this up.


Melville: What did you do that for?
Steed: For services not rendered.

Meville’s traitorousness is perhaps played as a card for too long, since weknow he isn’t one, but some of the apparent daftness is undoubtedly delivered on in terms of prospective plot holes, such as not being able to communicate your true meaning in anyway (writing, for example). Added to which, not only keeping Melville on the job but having him act as lookout again when Steed goes to the flat is asking for trouble. Charles Crichton does a nifty job with the related action sequences, though, with Steed trapped in the flat when Edgefield and Brayshaw return, only to sidle round and clock the chauffeur before pegging it with the contents of the safe. Subsequently, he takes Melville out to the woods and clocks himone. Very handy punches thrown in this episode, and I’m guessing the, er, punchy timing of these scenes can be put down to Crichton.


Steed: (regarding a bottle of champagne) Plucky, but from the wrong side of the hill.

Edgefield appears to be a master blackmailer, but evidence against him, and those testifying against him, is rather falling apart. Notably Plummer (Michael Lees), who denies he has anything to say against Edgefield when the official interview begins with the lord present. It’s curious that there’s no further interrogation of why he “decided” to renege on his statement, however; Tara visits his flat and manages to let the dog Suzy lap up some drugged milk, which provides something of a steer regarding its effects. She barks repeatedly when no one’s there; we’re told of the “lie drug” that “It neutralises the facility that distinguishes the true from the false” and in her case, she doesn’t appear to need asking to respond with a porky.


Steed: Melville, did you and I work together today?
Melville: No.
Mother: It seems we’ve found our problem.
Steed: But not sorted it.

Indeed, the yes/no thing is never entirely ironed out by Burnham. Melville takes a lie detector test, evidently on the milk (what do they do if their target doesn’t do dairy?) and Steed says to him “I asked if you if there was any sign of him. You said no”. Melville replies “I said yes”. If he’s unable to distinguish true from false – in action, this is more about verbalisation than distinguishing, though – so saying the opposite of what he wanted to say (admitting he said no), he’d say yes, but he ought to believe that he said yes (which is why he tells Steed he warned him when they are in the woods), in which case he’d have said “no” when asked.


Sir Joseph: Lord Edgefield is the most incorrupt, irreproachable to a man in the country. A paragon of virtue!

The judge in the case, Sir Joseph Tarlton (Tony Steedman, 3.20: The Little Wonders, Socrates in Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure) also succumbs to milk poisoning, courtesy of Dreemykreem Dairies. As in a few other stories, the villains are hiring their services out to clients (5.1: The Fear Merchants), such that Edgefield would rather like to invest in the firm and is told their fees are “Very expensive”.


Sykes: Butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth, Miss King. Or would it? Sloman.
Sloman: Yes.
Sykes: Put her in the butter machine.

The Tara plotline in this one is curious. She manages to find the lair of the villains, gets discovered by them – by leader Sykes (John Bennett, 2.1: Mission to Montreal) and assistant Sloman (Dan Meaden) – takes a milky dip with Sloman, escapes, fails to inform Sir Joseph, then Steed due to drinking a good half a pint of the stuff, gives chase when Lane (Rio Fanning, 5.19: Dead Man’s Treasure) delivers a couple of bottles to Steed, does an impressive fall/roll on the road when she fails (courtesy of her stunt double), and thentakes it upon herself to return to the dairy and try smashing all the bottles, before getting captured and – hilariously – put into a human-sized butter machine (after last episode’s hourglass). One has to admire her boundless energy throughout, but nothing about her behaviour is remotely thought out (although, she does at least try to write down what isn’t going on, thus helping Steed to work out that “The milk is harmless” is the reverse of the truth).


Sykes: There you are, you see, damsel seems to revel in her distress.

Indeed, Thorson’s timing in response to questions is very amusing, particularly so when she’s in the butter machine and Steed shows up. By this point, the latter has cleverly drugged the villains’ wine so they aren’t able to communicate very well, although it’s another example of the plot relying on you to think that everything about what they’re doing rests on the true/false capacity (and since this clearly doesn’t extend to them seeing Steed as suddenly a friend instead of an enemy, it surely has its limits).


The bus setting for Mother’s HQ is probably the classic, so much so it was repeated in the 1998 movie, and its effectiveness is only added to by being evidently shot entirely on location. Very amusing too is Steed’s portable bus stop and would-be passengers being denied entry. 


Steed: That’s for itinerate cats.

As for the coda, Steed’s trying to make use of all that butter Tara was encased in (one of the series’ most cartoonish visual gags): he appears to have been lying to her about how ravishing she looks, but he’s just been winding her up, as the glass of milk on the table isn’t for him. False Witness is a daft episode that largely entertains despite, rather than because of it being played straight.










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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

You're waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his …

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

What you do is very baller. You're very anarchist.

Lady Bird (2017)
(SPOILERS) You can see the Noah Baumbach influence on Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut, with whom she collaborated on Frances Ha; an intimate, lo-fi, post-Woody Allen (as in, post-feted, respected Woody Allen) dramedy canvas that has traditionally been the New Yorker’s milieu. But as an adopted, spiritual New Yorker, I suspect Gerwig honourably qualifies, even as Lady Bird is a love letter/ nostalgia trip to her home city of Sacramento.

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…

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

Kindly behove me no ill behoves!

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
(SPOILERS) It’s often the case that industry-shaking flops aren’t nearly the travesties they appeared to be before the dust had settled, and so it is with The Bonfire of the Vanities. The adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s ultra-cynical bestseller is still the largely toothless, apologetically broad-brush comedy – I’d hesitate to call it a satire in its reconfigured form – it was when first savaged by critics nearly thirty years ago, but taken for what it is, that is, removed from the long shadow of Wolfe’s novel, it’s actually fairly serviceable star-stuffed affair that doesn’t seem so woefully different to any number of rather blunt-edged comedies of the era.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.