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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

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.