Skip to main content

Tonight it seems he stalks again through the alleys of the East End.

The Avengers
6.26: Fog

Jeremy Burnham’s teleplay offers an overtly Ripper-esque villain (the deliciously named Gaslight Ghoul) and John Hough serves up appropriately fog-shrouded visuals aided by a very faux-Victorian London set; Fog is arguably pretty thin when it comes down to it, but it’s an appealingly atmospheric yarn, and one with negligible interest in anything approaching a real-world setting, which is very much in its favour.


I guess you could argue that element is represented by the Russian delegation for the Disarmament Committee, whom Steed meets at the station and who are the targets of the recreated Ghoul’s attentions. Except that, once introduced, they’re set off wandering the foggy streets (“We still lead the world in that department” announces Steed) with no rhyme or reason, simply to become targets of the Ghoul. 


The murders have “all the makings of an international incident” with Steed Holmes to Tara’s Watson (Burnham did no reading of Conan Doyle in preparation). The trail takes them to a costumier’s (Norman Chappell, 1.12: Dance with Death, 1.23: Dead of Winter, 3.14: The Gilded Cage, 4.4: Dial a Deadly Number, 5.22: Murdersville), with a dog in a jar on a table, and then on to the Gaslight Ghoul Club, formed in honour of the murders; they’re ”a society of harmless eccentrics”, where members curiously appear to rent their Ghoul costumes (complete with beard) rather than buy their own.


Steed’s “in” as a member of the select society is a fabricated – with Mother’s ready collaboration – diary written by his Great Aunt Florence (his “favourite auntie”), which drops a bombshell on page 194, paragraph 2 concerning a previously unknown – unsurprisingly – tenth Ghoul murder. Patrons of the club include its President Sir Geoffrey Armstrong (Nigel Green, great value, with a more substantial role than in 5.6: The Winged Avenger; his housekeeper is Patsy “Wouldn’t want that served with onions” Smart from The Talons of Weng Chiang, Travers (Guy Rolfe), and Wellbeloved (John Garrie, also The Winged Avenger), who Steed mistakes for an exhibit (“Some of these figures are remarkably lifelike”).


Armstrong: Oh, hello Steed. I didn’t recognise you. It’s time you grew a beard.

Armstrong, also a doctor, is the most likely culprit (he’s extremely right wing, and formed SADOBE, the Society Against the Disintegration of the British Empire), but when he’s topped, we know we’re in red herring territory, and since the cast is limited, it has to be chatty Travers. 
Armstrong goes out with style, though, noting his attacker’s words (“He said, that’s a cure for your fever”) and rather witty final words as Steed tells him he’ll send for a doctor: “I am a doctor, old boy. You can send me… an undertaker”.


Travers: These fools want to disarm the world.

Travers’ agenda isn’t terribly interesting, amounting to “protection of my livelihood. Armaments, guns, ammunition. All the trappings of war”, and it isn’t quite clear why the club makes the perfect cover, but he seems to think it does. 

 
Besides victims Grunner (John Barrard), Valarti (Frederick Peisley) and Osgood, cab-hire company man Sanders (Paul Whitsun-Jones, 3.6: Man With Two Shadows, The Wringer, 4.9: Room without a View) also falls foul of the Ghoul (the sound of his cab is actually a tape recording). The streets are full of authentic Victorian types, including a seller of lucky heather (Virginia Clay), a blind man (William Lyon Brown, 5.17: Death’s Door), an organ grinder (Stan Jay) and a knife grinder (Bernard Severn), without any explanation for why they should be anachronistically hanging around the anachronistic streets. Mother too is doing the rounds, patrolling the streets in a Mini Moke with a flashing light and radar.


Tara gets a decent terrible pun (“I just can’t bear traps”) but it isn’t her most memorable showing, and the coda is also fog, or steam, bound, with Mother driving through the apartment (“I think you left the door open”). Fog isn’t any kind of series peak, but it’s very likeable.










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