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

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.

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.

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.