Skip to main content

I’ve got things going round in ’ere that would make Maigret drop ’is pipe.

The Wrong Arm of the Law
(1963)

(SPOILERS) The signs were arguably there with the acclaim he received for his performance as Quilty in the previous year’s Lolita, but we’re right on the cusp of the second phase of Peter Sellers’ movie career here, just before The Pink Panther and Dr. Strangelove sent his star into the stratosphere. One might even trace this germ back to The Mouse That Roared (1959), his first significant US success and a spark for his more troublesome tendencies. Coming at the end of Sellers’ post-war British comedy period, The Wrong Arm of the Law is in some respects relatively run of the mill in its “cops and robbers with a twist” trappings, replete with a range of recognisable faces; it could quite easily have been made a decade earlier.

Parker: A quiet bit of breaking and entering is one thing, but sloshing a bogey in the execution of ’is duty. Oh dear, dear, dear!

The picture is dubiously able to boast five writers (with another two getting story credit), most prominently Ray Galton and Alan Simpson on their second feature after The Rebel. The premise, of known-quantity local criminals forming a truce with the police in order to bring down a gang of (Australian) interlopers who are making both sides look bad, is certainly original enough. However, despite some first-class interplay between the leads – Sellers and Lionel Jeffries, previously on opposite sides of the law in Two-Way Stretch – this comedy doesn’t quite have the verve of other, earlier outings from the likes of Ealing or the Boulting Brothers. Serviceable director Cliff Owen may be part of that, having come from TV (he could later boast the dubious honour of calling the shots on two of the three Morecambe and Wise movies). Most memorable are his freeze-frame punches during the climactic fisticuffs.

Pearly: I do not sell frocks in the West End. I sell gowns, mate!

I mentioned The Pink Panther, and Sellers is curiously playing a similar role there to that of Lionel Jeffries’ Inspector Fred “Nosey” Parker. That is, if Nosey came equipped with Pearly Gates’ fake French accent – he poses as a couturier in his legitimate business – and main squeeze Valerie (Nanette Newman). Because the protagonist in both movies is oblivious to his other half’s subterfuge. Admittedly, however, The Wrong Arm of the Law is considerably burdened by Valerie having no stated motivation for passing on her lover’s information to the rival gang. Added to which, Newman herself is entirely unsuited to the role (you at least want someone vaguely sympathetic, and vaguely believable as a grand schemer). It’s also the case that Pearly never finds out about Valerie’s “unfaithful” behaviour, while Clouseau is eventually apprised of the facts.

Pearly: Send in a nice pot of tea and a couple of fairy cakes, will you?

Besides Valerie, there’s the issue of the facelessness of the opposing gang, the IPO mob (“Impersonating Police Officers”). They’re essentially cyphers dressed as police, showing up to foil the best laid plans at selected intervals. It was probably decided that, with Sellers and Jeffries, enough friction was already on offer. Sellers is playing one of his competents (you could swap in Michael Caine from The Italian Job fairly effortlessly, although you couldn’t trust Caine with the French accent… or any accent for that matter; apparently Sir Michael appears uncredited here, although I didn’t spot him). It’s only Pearly’s blind spot for Valerie that is his undoing. This isn’t a role to bring Sellers broad laughs, then, but he does get a few chuckles in (particularly so describing next week’s educational films to the gang: Rififi, The Day they Robbed the Bank of England and The League of Gentlemen).

Parker: Do you know, I walked right through the building and out the other side without one single constable saluting me?
Pearly: As usual.
Parker: ’Ey!

Jeffries is on peak idiot form, and rather like Terry-Thomas in The Naked Truth, he steals the proceedings from his co-star whenever they’re on screen together (it’s no wonder Sellers became quite possessive about such things later on, when he had far more autonomy). Against Nosey’s wishes, his boss (John Le Mesurier) assigns Parker to Pearly “to become a criminal” for the duration of the operation (which inevitably goes wrong). In a surprise turn, Parker succumbs to temptation and agrees to split the loot from the heist with Gates. Alas, it’s only after their getaway that they discover the substance of the notes, whereby “The Comedy Bank of England promises to pay the bearer 500 laughs” (naturally, per the lineage of such movies, the criminals are not allowed to get away with it).

Brassknuckles: You know, they stripped all our clothes off and left us in the nude.
Pearly: In the what?
Brassknuckles: Well, we had our undies on.

Also on hand are Bernard Cribbins trying out his Oirishness as rival boss Nervous O’Toole (Cribbins in his mid-30s, passing for a decade younger), Graham Stark, Arthur Mullard and Tutte Lemkow (this time playing a German, a German voiced by Sellers). Dennis Price has a scene as “Educated Ernest, confidence trickster”.

Parker: Don’t call me Nosey!

The Wrong Arm of the Law received a glowing Time Out review; Adrian Turner clearly tickled himself with his reading of “a sly portrait of Britain slowly emerging from the ‘Never Had it So Good’ days into the Wilson era”, on account of the “welfare state criminality” of the homegrown gangs being undermined by the emigres. I don’t know. Maybe… Even if that’s the case, the movie isn’t quite precise enough in its targets and execution to count as an all-timer. Nevertheless, you can’t go too far wrong with Sellers and Jeffries sparring.




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.

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.

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…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.