Skip to main content

Body snatchers in this day and age?

The Avengers
6.33: Bizarre

Perhaps I was just being kind as it’s the last episode, or that I liked the final scene (which I still do like) but I had it in my head that Bizarre was a slight but agreeable way to go out. I was right about the slight part.


Mother: Are you sure he was dead?
Steed: No respiration, no heartbeat, ice cold. Yes, he was dead.

Mainly, its problem is that, rather like Requiem, it’s deathly dull and seems to be repeating the same unfunny skit ad infinitum. There’s no tension or surprise involved (the nature of the scam is pretty obvious; it’s even been used, effectively and more inventively, in the show before in 3.9: The Undertakers) and the whole thing looks very cheap, which hasn’t often been the case with the show in the colour era. I guess they had their pink slips by then, though, and funds were drying up. 


I mentioned Ola from 3.7: Don’t Look Behind You in reference to the previous episode’s loony Circe, and now we have Sally Nesbitt back, who played Ola Mk II in 5.15: The Joker, only in a rather thankless role as Helen, thrown from a train in her nightie and reporting a dead man, Jupp (John Sharp, 2.13: Traitor in Zebra, 5.22: Murdersville). 


There’s also Roy Kinnear (3.25: Esprit De Corps, 4.15: The Hour That Never Was, 5.5: The See-Through Man) in a very Clemens tradesman-with-a-stupid-name role, as the proprietor of Happy Meadows Funeral Home, Mr Bagpipes Happychap. In the first instance, this isn’t the usual breathless, nervous Kinnear part, but don’t worry; by the end, he’s doing pratfall pass-outs at the sight of a trail of bodies rising from his graves. 


The cemetery is a very obvious studio set, and the underground pad housing the “deceased” looks even less ostentatious. Some of the narrative decisions make little sense. If the villains are so concerned about witness Helen identifying a dead man as alive, why send a dead man (Bradney Morton – Frank Maher) to kill her, since this will only confirm there’s mischief afoot (he officially died of a heart attack six months ago)?


Steed: They say you can’t buy your way into heaven, but I aim to try.

I wondered slightly at the large role for Captain Cordell (James Kerry, Blake’s 7 Countdown), since it seems almost like a prototype for Gambit in The New Avengers… until he makes a fatal mistake during his stay under Happy Meadows – being recognised by Charley (Ron Pember, 1.18: Double Danger). Thus, Steed’s required to be the next applicant. In charge of the scheme is the Master (Fulton Mackay, 5.18: Return of the Cybernauts, 6.10: You’ll Catch Your Death), supported by Shaw (George Innes). 


The Master: I am the Master. I am also a charlatan, A fraud. A taker-in of the gullible.
Steed: Well, that makes two of us.

There’s a touch of post-modern brownface, as it were, with the Master’s get up; as with Legacy of Death, this isn’t a Caucasian actor pretending at ethnicity, but a Caucasian actor playing a Caucasian character pretending at ethnicity. Whether that makes it more justifiable, I don’t know, but it is at least self-aware. 


The Master: Really, Mr Steed, this morbid curiosity is verging on an obsession. If it’s digging you’re interested in, why don’t you take up gardening?

Happychap is given much aggrieved cause to continually dig up graves. The underworld consists of girls feeding guys grapes (“The mind boggles. What would it be like, I wonder, if I’d lived a completely blameless life?”) and Mother becomes frustrated with developments (“I wonder if it’s too late to hand this case over to another department?”), until Tara busts in through the bottom of a grave/roof and helps clear things up (“Steed is alive and well, but he’s staying in paradise”). 


The Master: Death is only the beginning, Mr Steed.

The coda is perhaps the series’ silliest, and therefore an entirely appropriate send-off (Notably, The Prisoner also finished with a rocket lifting off). Steed has constructed a rocket in his backyard but hasn’t got all of the instructions (asked how he stops it, he replies “That part arrives next week”). Although, he’s confident he can get them down eventually: “There’s no hurry, is there?” So yes, it’s a final encore for Tara going gooey eyed at Steed. Fortunately, the last word goes to Mother, also disapproving of such behaviour:

They’ll be back. You can depend on it... They’re unchaperoned up there!













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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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

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'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.

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 .

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for