Skip to main content

It's a simple case. A man with the mentality of a child of seven could handle it.

The Avengers
6.18: Wish You Were Here

Wish You Were Here counts as one of the season’s best so far, combining an appealingly eccentric premise from Tony Williamson (a guest house prison with no obvious barriers to leaving) with strong direction from Don Chaffey. I have to admit, though, like a bit of a lemon, the obvious The Prisoner parody aspect – it was even the working title – escaped me until afterwards, probably because this is tonally so different.


If there’s a flaw in the construction, it’s that it’s very obvious quite early on that Maxwell (Robert Urquhart, 4.16: Castle De’ath – where he was also the unassuming bad guy) is the mastermind behind all this. Nevertheless, there’s something endearing about the way the episode juggles the sinister and the silly, not least the presence of Mother’s nephew, incompetent buffoon Basil Crichton-Latimer (Brook Williams), sent to help out Tara, who has gone to find out what has happened to her Uncle Charles (Liam Redmond, 4.18: Small Game for Big Hunters), who took a holiday at the hotel nearly a month before and hasn’t returned (in the meantime, almost all the old staff at his business have been replaced). This is consequently a very Steed-lite episode, in which he’s nominally called upon by Mother to help work out the identity of a double agent.


Basil’s best moments include managing to get a golf ball in Mother’s whisky, bringing everything but the kitchen sink to the hotel (including parachute and ice skates – “Well, you never know, Been awfully chilly”), much to the exasperation of maître d’ Mellor (Richard Caldicot, 5.13: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Station), completely failing to lower his voice when Tara gives him the lowdown about their plight at breakfast, and getting hit on the head when the call to chivalry – a scantily clad girl in the bushes – distracts him from his escape bid (“A tree fell on me”). 


Basil: I was decorated, with a vengeance.

In contrast to Number Six being assaulted by beach balls and armed patrols, the hotel’s methods are decidedly mundane, consisting of flat tyres, ruined laundry, being deluged with paint and the occasional broken limb. Such that the decision to escalate from simple detention to murder as a standard response, following the “extreme case” of Brevitt (David Garth, 2.14: The Big Thinker, 4.14: How to Succeed… At Murder) doesn’t really bear much analysis; manager Parker (Dudley Foster, 4.15: The Hour That Never Was, 5.14: Something Nasty in the Nursery) goes from protesting to Kendrick (Gary Watson, 1.17: Death on the Slipway, 2.17: Immortal Clay, 3.26: Lobster Quadrille) and Vickers (Derek Newark, 3.22: The Trojan Horse, 5.4: From Venus with Love) that this isn’t how they do things, to suggesting a celebration with champagne in the space of a couple of minutes. What did they do previously? Let victims go? Was there a previously? This outfit doesn’t exactly seem like the Fear Merchants in terms of organisation skills. 


Tara: Whoever heard of a hotel without water. Or food.

Thus, Tara’s means of fighting back is crude but effective, forming a barricade in the kitchen where those present (including Maxwell, for the time being) have a feast while she and Basil adopt full chef’s attire. After the rest of the guests have left, they go on the attack, with frying pans and floor polish as chosen methods of dispatching the enemy, culminating in Maxwell succumbing to a banana skin and a paint pot on the head.


Steed: You want to come back to all those spies and thieves and masterminds?
Tara: No, I want to come back to a long, long rest.

Also notable is Gia Kelly (The Seeds of Death), whose role as Miss Craven appears to have gone walkabout somewhere; she seems to have more importance than there is on screen. Unlike the rest of the episode, the coda is pretty feeble; Steed can’t leave the apartment unless Tara holds the fort alone. She agrees, only to discover Steed has been lumbered with a neighbour’s baby and he’s off down the pub. Still, with an episode like this, it’s easy to forget the drubbing this season often gets.















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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.