Skip to main content

If it turns out to be a poltergeist, vicar, you shall exorcise it.

The Avengers
6.29: Thingumajig

Not up to the high standard of Terry Nation’s previous two teleplays, alas, this is a rather standard-issue affair of something killing off archaeologists in a cave under a church. Indeed, it’s most intriguing aspect is its title. Still, it features Iain Cuthbertson, which is in its considerable favour.


Steed: If it turns out to be a poltergeist, vicar, you shall exorcise it.

The murderous culprit is more Cybermat than Dalek, a little black box that slides around the place – somehow, it’s able to climb stairs, so more manoeuvrable than a Dalek – making scratching noises before electrocuting its victims and leaving a burn mark on the forehead. 


How the box (one of two in the vicinity – the other ends up with Tara) arrived at the church is as precarious as the logic behind its behaviour. Its function is based on the projection of electric power through space (sounds a bit Tesla) and was developed by Kruger (Cuthbertson, The Ribos Operation, Children of the Stones, Budgie), formerly of the Royal Establishment. His boxes are designed to kill, with hundreds of thousands to be released around the country – he has a deal with Stenson (Vernon Dobtcheff, 4.9: Room without a View, 5.7: The Living Dead) to this end.


Truman: Get out of your apartment. That box is lethal. It has one purpose – to destroy!

So it’s not the most inventive setup (shades of 5.23: The Positive-Negative Man with the unseen electrocuter) in aid of not the most terrifying of menaces, as directed by Barry Norman’s dad Leslie. Although, the sequence in which Tara is under attack by one in her flat is effectively played out; she eventually overcomes it with the aid of champagne. 


Much of Tara’s interaction is with morbidly obese Professor Truman (Willoughby Goddard, the Deacon in 1.15: The Frighteners), a very memorable turn, with his snuff addiction, sneezing so hard that he topples Tara’s cake (“Oh I say, what a magnificent cake. Did you make it yourself, my dear?”)


Tara: Oh, Steed, you’ll never guess what I’m doing.
Steed: Icing a cake?

This means she isn’t on screen with Steed very much, but they do have the funniest exchange in the episode, as he calls her in the middle of icing a cake and asks him to guess what she’s doing. Steed is mostly paired with Inga (Dora Reisser), while other archaeologists include Major Star (Hugh Manning, 4.17: The Thirteenth Hole, 5.12: The Superlative Seven) Dr Grant (John Horsley, 2.6: Mr Teddy Bear, The Box of Delights) and Brett (Edward Burnham, 5.1: The Fear Merchants).


Cuthbertson is the highlight, though, making a grand entrance (“I’m very light on my feet, you know”) and impressing the startled vicar (Jeremy Lloyd, Bertram Smith in 5.4: From Venus with Love) with his knowledge of Norman churches (“Barbarous period”). It isn’t a bad episode, then, but there isn’t enough to distract from how basic it all is. The coda finds Tara on the roof attempting to adjust Steed’s aerial; the picture is perfect when she’s hanging upside down outside the window. 











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 .

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.

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.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

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