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

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

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.

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.

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979) Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.