Skip to main content

The gods are best served by those who want their help least.

Jason and the Argonauts
(1963)

(SPOILERS) I dare say post-Star Wars generations tend to see Ray Harryhausen and his ilk as a hoary old joke. But even as one who was the right age to be fully on board with the shiny new cinema of Lucas and Spielberg, the period before any of their fare reached television, when it was populated by all sorts of movies – 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, The Valley of the Gwangi, The Land that Time Forgot, Doc Savage: Man of Bronze – that would now generally be regarded as less salutatory fodder, was in fact a kindling of the imagination. And Harryhausen influenced a slew of filmmakers, rabid acolytes including the aforementioned, John Landis and Sam Raimi. He was, after all, overtly about spectacle, which is why – not unlike latter-day blockbusters – you tended to be short-changed with regard to solid characterisation or performances from the main protagonists (if you can easily distinguish the leads of the Sinbads, or Jason, you’re a better fan than I am). Jason and the Argonauts was a formative picture, hugely impressive in many respects. It still is. Yes, it’s as creaky as Talos in places, but there’s a reason this one, rather than Clash of the Titans nearly twenty years later, gets the lion’s share of the plaudits.

Not that Clash of the Titans didn’t reap decent box office, hitching a ride on the fantasy boom Lucas ignited through embracing just enough of that cuteness – Bubo the mechanical owl – to blend the old ways and the new. It didn’t, however, convince MGM to finance Force of the Trojans (something of a melange of mythic creatures and encounters en route to Aeneas’ founding of Rome, by the sound of it). As Harryhausen tells it, Jason and the Argonauts’ success was mostly in afterlife reputation – although business was brisk in the Britain – and he considered the Academy failing even to nominate the picture for Best Visual Effects was partly to blame.

One of the issues that does need to be recognised with these earlier effects films, and you name it, is that, in contrast to the later wunderkinds, there was little creative acumen in marrying the director with the effects maestro. You’re not going to be caught mistaking any of the directors associated with bringing Harryhausen’s vision to the screen for secret auteurs. And if Don Chaffey was one of the better ones – he’d also helm several Hammers and Pete’s Dragon, as well a slew of quality episodes of 60s TV including four episodes of The Prisoner and five of The Avengers; unfortunately, he ended up jobbing on indifferent US shows, the likes of Airwolf, TJ Hooker, MacGyver and Matt Houston – he wasn’t someone particular adept at making the human element as compelling as the armies of skeletons and winged harpies.

Which means Jason and the Argonauts relies on its supporting cast to enliven the dead air between strange encounters. Olympus is pretty much sorted, with a very authoritative Honor Blackman as Hera, the devoted deity protector of Todd Armstrong’s Jason. Blackman was still in The Avengers at this point (she would leave to make Goldfinger) but it’s evidence of her ascending currency that she was, effectively, the leading lady (yes, you can make a case for Nancy Kovak’s Medea, but she arrives quite late in the game, doesn’t do much – less still the grisly activities that make her memorable in the myths – and like Armstrong, she suffers the indignity of being dubbed).

Niall MacGinnis is strangely perfect as Zeus. Sure, Laurence Olivier is more authoritarian in Clash of the Titans, but MacGinnis’ portly joviality, yet with underlying firmness, lends the appropriate two-edged quality that goes with being a big-cheese god who rather sees humanity as playthings (and has the effective chess board to convey the same). Michael Gwynn (later Lord Melbury in Fawlty Towers’ first episode) is a bit on the camp side as Hermes, which is probably about right. Aside from that, there’s only Triton (Bill Gudgeon), who offers some decent slow-motion exertion along with a convincingly flicking tail as sea god Triton – Poseidon’s son, but a ringer – during the Clashing Rocks encounter. Nevertheless, for all that it is sparsely populated, this vision of Olympus is simple but effective. So much so, it’s probably the first thing many of us go to when conjuring an image of the Greek gods’ mountainous residence (all ionic columns and friezes).

As for the humans, Nigel Green’s unlikely – as in, he’s no Schwarzenegger, and you just have to go forward a couple of years to The Ipcress File for a more typical role – Hercules is a surprising hit. So much so, you miss him when he stays behind to search for chum Hylas (John Cairney). There’s also Gary Raymond as Acastus – a bad guy in this iteration – but he isn’t terribly interesting, and Laurence Naismith as Argus (think chunky). That’s really it, though. If you didn’t know Jason and the Argonauts wasn’t the first choice of title (there’d already been a Jason and the Golden Fleece) you’d think there was something a bit suss in the lack of individualisation of the title characters.

Fortunately, Pat Troughton’s also on hand as blind Phineus, beset by heartless harpies, and Jack Gwillim as King Aeëtes (the fiend responsible for sowing the Hydra’s teeth). Both would later return to Harryhausen projects, the former in Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger, the latter as Poseidon in Clash of the Titans. And there’s Douglas Wilmer as Pelias, who initiates Jason’s quest in a “that’ll get him out of the way so he doesn’t do for me” piece of “cunning”. Very oddly, since Harryhausen says there was no explicit plan to make a sequel, the movie ends without Jason confronting the man who killed his father and thus fulfilling the prophecy and serving justice. You wonder at whoever signed off on the script conferences (the screenplay is credited to Beverly Cross – later of Clash of the Titans – and Jan Read).

Mostly, though, Jason and the Argonauts is about the set pieces. The first, with bronze giant Talos, is still mighty. Based on an early automaton legend involving technocrat god Hephaestus but rather inflated in size by Harryhausen so as to invoke the Colossus of Rhodes, it’s a piece of stop motion entirely suited to the slightly unreal (like the skeletons in that respect). The effectiveness is added to by outstanding and unnerving sound effects (Bernard Herrmann’s score is superb too). I think the harpies sequence was always my favourite, though; there’s something very primal about their purpose and realisation, essentially existing to torment Phineus, resigning him to a state of purgatorial misery. The Hydra and skeletons are impressive – and the latter, of course, was a major influence on Raimi’s Army of Darkness – but it’s these early encounters that stayed with me the most.

So yes, when the stop motion isn’t up there on screen, the drawbacks of a Harryhausen picture tend to be starkly in evidence. But for all the playing fast and loose with specifics, there’s a respect for the essential myths in his work, not least Jason and the Argonauts, that is absent from later versions, be that the unholy mess of the Clash of the Titans remake(s) or the gods-free attempt at The Iliad (Troy). Gods doing what gods do, heroes doing what heroes do, and Harryhausen manifesting fantastic beasts in between.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.