Skip to main content

Don’t care much for Berlin, sir. You’re liable to get your head shot off.

Funeral in Berlin
(1966)

(SPOILERS) A serviceable follow-up to The Ipcress File, but conclusive evidence that it wasn’t Michael Caine’s insolent performance as Harry Palmer alone – “You really work on the insubordinate bit, don’t you?” – that made it special. With Sydney J Furie conspicuously absent (Harry Salzman very much did not ask him to return), the directorial reins were passed to reliable go-to Guy Hamilton (Goldfinger). While Otto Heller returns as cinematographer, painting a suitably drab, austere Berlin, Bond editor Peter Hunt is absent, and so is the indelible score (Konrad Efers replaces John Barry). Gone too are the pep and verve of the original. This could be any Cold War spy movie, but with a pair of spectacles and an occasional quip.

Stok: As usual, there is no milk today.
Palmer: And so Russian tea was invented.

The result is a movie with a great title but a studious sense of “That’ll do”, right down to a screenplay (Evan Jones, later of the very good Wake in Fright, adapting Len Deighton) that can’t quite marry its two plotlines satisfyingly. Which is because they’re entirely separate. Ostensibly, Palmer is sent to Berlin to organise the defection of Soviet intelligence officer Colonel Stok (an ebullient Oscar Homolka, who would reappear in Billion Dollar Brain), with the assistance of local intelligence asset Johnny Vulkan (Paul Hubschmid). Palmer isn’t having any of it, doesn’t for a moment believe Stok really plans to defect, but is obliged to go along with the chicanery. It’s a plot thread resolved with half an hour to spare, the fake funeral of the title revealing Stok’s actual objective (Gunter Meisner’s Kreutzman, mastermind of numerous escapes over the Berlin Wall).

Hallam: Give my love to Berlin. I was there with Monty in ’45.
Palmer: So that’s why the Germans surrendered.

The only link between them is facilitator Vulkan, whom the Israelis don’t know they’re after and who wants his ID documents – those of Paul Louis Broum, his original identity – in order to lay his lands on Nazi loot secreted in a Swiss account. The connection’s too tenuous to prevent the picture from feeling awkward in switching focus. Stok is an entertaining character, but is ultimately something of a digression, one who has no consequences for the third act. And if the third act finds Palmer being a “shrewd little cockney”, the climax at the Wall – complete with rather desperate switched-coat routine – is less interesting than his confrontation with Vulkan, deciding to release him, or the pathetic attempt by Hallam (Hugh Burden) to divest him of the Broum documents.

Palmer: I’m not killing anybody in cold blood.
Ross: Then provoke him, if that’s going to satisfy your scruples.

Pauline Kael suggested that Palmer is “supposed to gain new humanity when he sees the Israeli agents really believe in principles”, with the consequence of the loss of his indifference to the larger stakes; “improve his character and you take away the only character he had”. I’m not sure I’m on board with this reading, as it would mean Harry was planning to deliver them Vulcan when he clearly was not; that the Israelis leave with a body merely turns out to be providential for Palmer, since he has no desire to get his hands bloody for anyone else’s principles. And his respect for the Israelis is based on the degree to which he fancies their alluring agent (asked if he is anti-Semitic when he hears about her Israel-based other half, he replies “only anti-husband”). As he says to Vulkan, “I’m not a judge at a war crimes trial. I don’t want to know about it and I don’t want to kill you”. If anything, his “new humanity” is evidenced by turning Ross down when he finally offers him that loan for a new car (“No thank you, sir. I’ll walk”), but that seems consistent with a character who wishes to retain his relative independence (taking the loan at this point would appear as tacit gratitude towards Ross and agreement with Vulcan/Broum’s fate).

Palmer: Don’t care much for Berlin, sir. You’re liable to get your head shot off.
Ross: That’s what you’re paid for, isn’t it, Palmer?
Palmer: Yes, sir.

It’s telling that the most vibrant scenes are, once again, those between Palmer and Guy Doleman’s Colonel Ross (“I’ve read your T-105, Palmer. Entertaining, but slightly pornographic”), keen to remind his indifferent artisan that his job is to be expendable. Hamilton (or more probably Heller) throws in the occasional Dutch angle to remind us of the picture’s stylish predecessor, but it’s mainly left to Caine to carry a picture that would otherwise be content to descend into a fairly ambivalent stodge. Of the daring escape by a musician across the wall in the opening scene, he is a scathing critic (“Escape? They probably paid him to leave”). He protests at his fake identity (“I’m sorry, I just don’t feel like an Edmund Dorf”) and produces a nice turn of phrase when summarising Stok’s behaviour (“I’ll tell them you talk well, and lie badly”). There’s also a streak of unobtrusive backstory, whereby Vulkan was involved in Palmer’s black-marketeering, while police contact Reinhardt (Thomas Holtzmann) despairs of Harry continually coming to him, asking if old crony safe crackers and forgers are still in business (“So crooked, they had to put you in intelligence”).

Ross: You might make a professional yet, Palmer.

Funeral in Berlin isn’t a bad movie, but aside from its star, by far its best feature is its title. Where Bond gradually built towards his finest hour (or near to it) with Goldfinger, Harry hit the ground running and so the only way was down. The picture isn’t so much lethargic as indifferent, failing to find sufficient reason for you to invest in the proceedings, other than that you’re already a fan of his work.




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.