Skip to main content

Extraordinary creatures. I’ve never been able to understand what motivates them.

The Avengers
6.23: Love All

Another quality episode from Jeremy Burnham, with a plot simultaneously both daft and clever (so very Avengers), but the biggest standout is the terrific performance from his wife – and later Children of the Stones lead – Veronica Strong, first seen as an aging, fag-ash cleaning lady with a strange knack for attracting men in the Ministry, and then as her “real” self, a dazzling beauty.


Tait: They were anathema to him, Steed. Sheer anathema. Mention women’s suffrage and he’d go purple in the face.

Martha appears to be the real name of Strong’s character as well as that of her alter ego, which might be a bit careless. She’s the source of the security leak at the Ministry, of course, secrets pertaining to missile redeployment, and she’s been picking on Sir Rodney (Robert Harris), who couldn’t have possibly been interested, as we learn from colleague Tait (Brian Oulton, 3.24: The Charmers): “That’s ridiculous. Rodney was a dedicated misogynist. One time, he and I even considered forming a club for genuine women haters”. Rodney’s soon for it when Metcalfe (David Baron, Ralpachan in The Abominable Snowmen) walks in on them; she tells Rodney to kill him. Later, she shoots Rodney. 


Bromfield: How does it feel to have every senior officer at the Ministry in love with you?

The mastermind behind all this is Bromfield (Terence Alexander, 4.1: The Town of No Return, 5.9: The Correct Way to Kill), who has placed microdots on each page of a book the Ministry men are enticed to read, “Constantly transmitting a subliminal message on every page”. The message: “You will fall in love with the next person you see” (“This could be more devastating than the atom bomb!” comments Steed). The reasoning is that love is most effective because it’s the emotion of co-operation. 


Alexander lacks much in the way of menace, but he doespull off his final scene with aplomb, which rather makes it all worthwhile. The conceit is remarkably well sustained, making inspired use of twists within its weird logic. Other Ministry victims we see are Roxby (Norman Pitt, 1.25: A Change of Bait) and Fryer (Frank Gatliff, 1.13: One for the Mortuary, 2.3: The Sell-Out, 2.24: A Chorus of Frogs, Ortron in The Monster of Peladon).


Bellchamber: Uh-huh, and what can I do for you, madam?
Tara: Ah, I’m looking for Mr Bellchamber.
Bellchamber: Crushing Lily.
Tara: Really? I’m surprised she doesn’t object.
Bellchamber: Crushing lilies for Lilly of the Valley, madam.


Burnham writes eccentricity for the show just right, and there’s a string of oddball scenes here, including Tara’s visit with Bellchamber (Peter Stephens, Cyril in The Celestial Toymaker, Lolem in The Underwater Menace), in pursuit of the brand of perfume worn by Martha (Reckless Abandon); she gets the wrong Bellchamber, this one being his brother:

Tara: How did you know I wasn’t looking for you?
Bellchamber: Nobody ever does, madam. You see, I’ve got no personality.
Tara: What, none at all?
Bellchamber: Not an iota.


Tara’s very much on the ball here, instantly reaching the conclusion that Sir Rodney’s behaviour derives from being in love while Mother pooh-poohs her. It’s questionable, though, why, having had her list of clients burned by Freeman (Larry Taylor, Living in Harmony and Many Happy Returns), she doesn’t just go back and get another (did I miss an announcement that Bellchamber had been killed?) She gets a nice parting swipe at Bellchamber:

Tara: Oh yes, could you send me a case of Lily of the Valley.
Bellchamber: Certainly, madam.
Tara: Crushed by your brother, of course.


Tara will eventually suffer an attack of the microdots, but before her comes Tait, who unfortunately for Martha is beaten to him by Policewoman Grimshaw (Ann Rye):

Grimshaw: Are you the owner of the car number 308HYH?
Tait: Yes.
Grimshaw: You are parked in a no parking zone.
Tait: Am I?
Grimshaw: Yes. Have you anything to say?
Tait: Yes. I love you!

It’s a most amusing scene, with Tait’s earnestness falls on bemused ears (“I want to take her away from London into the soft warm sun, to a place where her delicate, fragile beauty can blossom into the rare, exotic flower she really is”). 


Tara manages to get spiked into falling for Bromfield, who then invites her to leap out of the nearest window, having been slighted in love. Most notable of this scene is that Macnee apparently cracked two ribs trying to hold onto Thorson and, well, watching it, you aren’t really surprised.

 
Thelma: A scare like that could give a girl grey hair.
Steed: Well, I’m sure that whatever colour your hair, you’d still be equally attractive.
Thelma: It’s not original, you know.
Steed: Your hair?
Thelma: Your line. It’s not original.

That doesn’t stop Macnee from being on great form – “If you’re wanting to sell that, I er, have one already” he advises when Fryer points a gun at him – particularly earlier, when he pays a call on Casanova Ink (helpfully, Freeman was wearing a ring with the name on it). He meets who he thinks is Rosemary Z Glade but is actually Thelma (Patsy Rowlands, on magnificently bewildered form), who simply types the ingredients for a novel into a piano keyboard; Rosemary’s a computer designed by Bromfield (“There you are: instant romance”), albeit it isn’t perfect and she can be a very bad speller sometimes, while in one case “Instead of boy gets girl it kept coming out girl gets gorilla”. Steed is resolutely a smoothy, particularly his fannish line when he still believes Thelma is Glade:


Steed: I’ve read all your books.
Thelma: What, all 437?
Steed: On a cold winter night, I love nothing more than curling up in front of the fire with Rosemary Z Glade.

Nevertheless, he opts not to rely totally on his charm, stealing a copy of a microdotted novel and using it to defend himself from the collected attentions of Martha, Bromfield and Thelma (“Now, one of these takes a few hours. I wonder what twenty will do”). 


Steed: Go on, admit it. I’m irresistible.
Bromfield: Well, I must say, Steed. You seem a very… decent sort of chap to me.
Martha: Command me.
Thelma: Ooh, your lovely.

It’s particularly amusing to see Blomfeld going moderately gay for Steed. Indeed, with the rampant misogyny and Steed being accidentally pursued home by swarms of screaming school girls in the coda (“They’re crazy about me. It is no joke being a teenage idol”), there are a number of cheerfully only-of-its-era elements with regard to sexual mores. 


Tara also falls in love with Steed, but it’s almost as if there’s no difference, since she’s like that at the end of every flipping episode (he hits her with his hat, which he should have done a long coda ago). A note for Mother’s den: entry via a manhole (Steed drops straight down) and cricket nets about the place as Rhonda bowls. At this point in Season Six, perhaps by sheer dint of numbers, the show’s reached a run of quality unmatched by any bar the fourth. And people decry the Tara King era.








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

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

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.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the