Reviews
Pharma Bro (2021)
A documentary that misses its real target
I didn't think this documentary was as bad as thought, but am going to contradict myself by saying I understand many of the criticisms levelled at it, especially the lack of focus & in joining so many themes together.
I arrived at this documentary after reading a story about a group of Australian schoolboys who recreated the life-saving drug, whose price Shkreli inflated by thousands of percent.
Shkreli was the public face of price gouging, operating as the documentary shows in the nexus between hedge funds/financial world & the pharmaceutical industry. His insouciance brought unwelcome attention to its practice, hardly a surprise that one of his former employers had now banned him off the premises as they tried to distance themselves from him.
Shkreli perhaps should have been the entry-point into a much wider discussion of the themes raised rather than the entire focus. For instance, Pharma Bro does not delve in the wider nature of corporate evil as in 'The Devil We Know' (shown on BBC Storyville) & of pollution and the manufacture of toxic products. Maybe it needed someone like Michael Moore (Roger & Me). I remember one of his documentaries revealing the horror of 'dead peasant' insurance policies that profited from the sudden deaths of employees.
The two of the more serious contributors skirted around issues that were far more complicated, Judith Aberg & the law expert from Harvard who mentioned the issue of 'morals' & healthcare. Judith Aberg was pessimistic, such behaviour practiced by Shkreli was made possible by deregulation & a lack of rules, he is merely a product of the system, and of America itself.
There was also an interview with Patrick, a patient affected by the price gouging & victim of such practices. Shkreli reached out to him online, but this reminds me of corporate America where the rich will hold fund raising events etc, but refuse to pay fair levels of tax because, shock horror, it's 'socialism.' Shkreli's gesture was the exception rather than the rule. Perhaps if he had come into closer, personal contact with patients, this may have brought more understanding, perhaps unlikely, but it might have made more for compelling drama.
Instead, Pharma Bro comes across as a piece of gonzo journalism. The conceit regarding Shkreli as some kind of comic book supervillain was interesting up to a point, but was too superficial a comparison in the end for a man who was nothing more than an opportunist. Hovering in the background, unmentioned by name, is America's biggest opportunist, & Shkreli probably would have made a wonderful Apprentice.
Shkreli is the dark side of the American dream, the story of a son of Albanian immigrants whose promise became sidetracked by greed & notoriety. It was interesting that there were no interviews with immediate family or contemporaries/tutors from his school & college. Instead, there was a laughable excuse of an interview with people from his family's home region in Albania, who took pride in Shkreli and even excused his behaviour as 'capitalism'. I would have liked to have seen their comments turned back on them about how would they have liked it if someone came along & artificially inflated the price of something of acute need to them?
I'm not sure the documentary a hagiography as Shkreli was revealed to be a stalker & harassed journalists by buying websites with their domain names. He was made out to be an eccentric on an occasion, and a man not without a curious beguiling charm, but in the end, he became the public face of the unacceptable side of American capitalism.
The documentary was OK in parts, and enlightening enough for someone not familiar with Shkreli but it proved to be a missed opportunity, considering that it was ironically about an opportunist. Shkreli himself is not as interesting as he thinks (the dull live online streaming), the subject of price gouging, America and its health system should have been the real target, a perhaps altogether much more complicated subject.
Tales of the Unexpected: Where's Your Sense of Humour? (1983)
Putting Jack back in his box
Another episode that hasn't featured on the loop of repeats on Sky Arts (UK), but is available online.
It's well-structured & moves at a brisk pace. There's a lot more going on beneath the apparent veneer of jovial bonhomie. Prankster George acts like an overgrown schoolboy, his immature antics tolerated by a loving wife, his attempts at humour made worse by his near constant, irritating refrain/catchphrase of 'Where's Your Sense of Humour?' when his victims don't quite appreciate the joke. It sounds even worse when his wife, Julie, occasionally joins in.
George's practical jokes begin to get under the skin of Frank, his friend & rival at work, & Frank's wife, Laura, as they try to avoid giving George the satisfaction of knowing that he's getting the better of them. I agree that the later scene where George crudely banters with a clearly uninterested Laura was good. We don't know if he is joking or not, which makes it an uncomfortable watch.
Without spoiling the plot too much, the initial scenes set up the premise of George as a prankster, but whose jokes take on a much more sinister edge as he sabotages Frank's opportunity at getting promoted at work, and wears Laura's patience. Another narrative strand suggests that George isn't in good health (his cough). The payoff involves Laura discovering a way of getting her own back on him, but just like George with his rather unfunny pranks, things go a bit too far.
I do agree with the review about the ending, but it works as a punchline to a story which is about irony, and a rather irritating character getting their comeuppance.
The episode is certainly engaging enough to occupy your attention for twenty five minutes, like, the relationship & interplay between the two couples . It's well-acted, particularly Sheila Gish as the long-suffering Laura & Philip Jackson (George), whose puckish sense of humour verges on the malicious.
Tales of the Unexpected: Skin (1980)
A slow burner of an episode
I opted to catch this particular episode online as it hasn't featured on Sky Arts (UK) series of repeats, and for the obvious reason. As mentioned by another reviewer, there are risque elements (nudity).
The episode fleets between the past (1913) & the present day (Paris after the Liberation) with Sir Derek Jacobi playing an elderly vagrant forced to scavenge food from hotel dustbins. Hungry & desperate, his attention is drawn to a poster for an exhibition of the work of Chaim Soutine. It transpires that the destitute man knew 'little Soutine' when they were young.
The viewer then finds themselves transported to the world of pre-WWI artistic Paris with Jacobi now playing the vagrant as a younger man. He is friends with Soutine who is painting a portrait of the man's wife.
We learn that Jacobi's character is a tattooist. The sensuality hinted in the episode is made explicit when we discover that the husband, too, is an artist of sorts.
After a drunken binge, the husband makes Soutine a rather bizarre offer. He asks him to draw a portrait of his wife on his back, and, in exchange, will show Soutine how to tattoo it so that he will be left with a permanent work of art on his body. The artist produces a portrait so sublime that even he considers it worthy of his signature.
The story returns to the present day of Paris after the Liberation. The unworldly tramp finds himself drawn to the exhibition advertised on the poster. The gallery owner there is about to throw him out of the plush surroundings when he tells him about the intriguing painting on his back. He makes the vagrant an offer, but it is a bargain fraught with risk. It is at this point that another well-to-do older gentleman, the owner of a hotel in Cannes, steps forward.
The ending appears abrupt - switching to a completely different location - but one which makes macabre sense. The chilling nature of the information given to us by Dahl's voice-over reminds us of the rather unsentimental anecdote which begins the episode.
It's also an episode that satirizes the art world & commerce through the gallery owner, who views the vagrant as a walking canvas that he can profit from rather than as a human being.
Interestingly, Herbert Wise plays the hotel owner under an anagram of his real name (final credits). It's a cameo which suggests that he was as a good an actor as he was a director.
Screen Two: The Long Roads (1993)
Moving & profound
I was pleased to see this repeated for the first time on BBC4 as the BBC repeats some of its historic drama. I caught this drama the first time round in the early 90s and never forgot the basic story of a couple going to visit their children around the UK. Watching it again after thirty years, I felt some parts of it were schematic (the social commentary), but that others took on greater significance such as the relationship between the elderly couple. "We found what we came for,' says one of the couple towards the end of the film (to paraphrase). I perhaps missed this key theme the first time round. They rediscover each other.
I returned to this film after watching 'Tokyo Story' which this BBC drama is supposed to have been inspired by. In John McGrath's story, the plot is not only about parents & children - how the parents are merely an inconvenience for some of them, but Peter & Kitty's relationship. Kitty is a quiet understated character, (an outstanding performance by Edith MacArthur), but we come to realize that it was her quiet strength that held the family together whilst her husband traversed the waves as a merchant sailor. The image of a child's drawing of the sun can be interpreted both as a comment on the beauty & fragility of life, the sunlight flitting across the crops as well as symbolic of the role Kitty occupied in the family's life.
It's a fascinating television film in many ways despite trying to 'shoe-horn' so much in terms of class observations. Watching the film, you do wonder if it is also a comment on our individualistic age. There is a suggestion that one sister has been forced into prostitution whilst another lives in exclusive Chelsea. The children are drawn with enough detail not to become mere ciphers. One is cynical & jaded by his job, another worn down by circumstance/poverty, whilst another's apparent comfy middle-class life is revealed to be empty.
There are moments when the film does occasionally feel a touch sentimental. Peter's final outburst. I would have preferred him to collect flowers in silent grief though this is a personal quibble. Perhaps we need an insight into his state of mind after he tells the local doctor that he is 'managing'.
I thought Kitty's despair at her impending fate - the couple's embrace in the hotel - was very truthful and one of the most powerful scenes in a memorable film.
Tales of the Unexpected: Galloping Foxley (1980)
Master & servant
This episode featured alongside 'Georgy Porgy' on Sky Arts. Both are about men deeply affected & damaged by childhood trauma. Interestingly, they feature an actor/actress playing dual roles, one in the past and one in the present. The child & adolescent actors also excel in their roles of oppressor & victim.
This is an uncomfortable watch as it is about the (profound) sadism & cruelty of life at boarding school and, as other reviewers mention, Dahl admits that much of it is based on his own experience at public school.
Like 'Georgy, Porgy', this episode deftly weaves between past & present through flashback & the voice-over of William Perkins (John Mills), a middle-aged, middle-brow commuter who finds his usual, clockwork routine turned upside down by the arrival of a new upstart commuter.
Gradually, Perkins becomes convinced that the man is Foxley, the prefect who victimized him at school as a boy.
John Mills also plays the role of Perkins' father, who unwittingly sets in motion the events of the story after he reprimands Foxley at the beginning of the episode. Foxley, in turn, begins to pursue a remorseless campaign of bullying against the son out of spite.
The ending of the televised adaptation is more ambivalent than the one in the original short story (where Perkins only talks to the man to ask him his name): here, the object of Perkins' righteous indignation sidesteps any showdown by informing him that he actually went to another school, & that it is a case of mistaken identity.
But was Perkins mistaken? Or has he been forced to suffer one final humiliation at the hands of his former nemesis, with the rest of the train carriage making a swift exit in embarrassment (the boys in the dormitory), leaving him once again shame-faced, and denied the recompense that he thought was finally his.
There are enough clues to make us think that the stranger in the train was Perkins' childhood tormentor. Earlier in the episode, the commuter subtly mocks Perkins by comparing his stern manner to a former officer of his in the Army. And what was Foxley wearing on one occasion when he thrashed Perkins as a boy? An OTC/cadets uniform.
There are other tantalizing clues: Foxley's wavy hair, now grey, hanging over the right side of his face; his distinctive attire; his sang-froid under pressure; and perhaps most obvious of all, the cane he used to beat his childhood victim with, and how he still carries it in the same manner over his shoulder.
(Browsing stills from the episode, Perkins pere is smoking a cigar when he first accosts Foxley outside the school. The mysterious stranger provokes Perkins' ire when he lights up a cigar in the railway carriage).
Alfred Hitchcock Presents: The Case of Mr. Pelham (1955)
Curious, if slightly frustrating
I have to admit to preferring 'Tales of the Unexpected' as an anthology series but ...Hitchcock Presents...is its precursor -and there are a few storylines that feature in both series such as 'The Orderly World of Mr Appleby''.
I thought this episode would be more comedic, as a man believes somebody is impersonating him after he is accused of odd, uncharacteristic behaviour on a number of occasions, such as rudely ignoring another club member. The confusion is gradually heightened but not actually explained, leading to a somewhat frustrating conclusion.
It has faint echoes of Dostoevsky's 'The Double', where a man finds himself displaced in his office & life by a more successful version of himself, who is able to fit in by being more sociable & obsequious than him.
As one reviewer seemed to suggest, the conclusion is left open-ended, but Mr Pelham's doppelganger is now on the verge of making his first million, suggesting that the more assertive side of his personality has emerged to take over, casting aside the old Pelham. Perhaps the story has some social relevance for the mid 1950s America in which it is set as a more assertive type of go-getting individual began to emerge, displacing older values (as suggested in the perceptive review, titled 'Weirdsville').
Chanson douce (2019)
The big bad wolf
I anticipated a dark psychological thriller, more in the French tradition of Chabrol, 'The Page Turner', but this film is more of a serious study of intimate relationships & the breakdown of a personality that eventually becomes so unhinged, it commits a shocking act of violence.
'Lullaby' (UK title) is primarily about obsession as well as being a social commentary on class, & a critique on modern parenting & motherhood.
Louise, a middle-aged nanny, quickly inveigles her way into Paul & Myriam's home - a busy, young middle-class couple - by evincing an impressive calm, authoritative manner with their children. Yet gradually her brooding personality reveals itself as she tries to exert control not only over the children, but the entire family. There is a clear desperate need within her which Mila & Adam are able to fill but which goes unnoticed by others, due to a lack of interest, a preoccupation with their own lives, or simply the fact that she is only a nanny after all. For instance, towards the end of the film, when Paul & Myriam discover that Louise has given a false reference, Paul is more upset about getting penalised for tax reasons than actually trying to discover what drove her to commit this act in the first place.
The children soon become dependent on Louise, such as when she toys with them during a game of hide & seek, early on in the film, yet it soon becomes apparent that if anyone is dependent on others for her emotional state of mind, it is Louise herself. She becomes so fiercely protective of her charges to a degree that goes beyond the normal & attracts adverse attention (the incident in the playground) . She becomes sullen & withdrawn when Paul's mother assumes responsibility for Mila & Adam at short notice and their attention is drawn elsewhere, leaving her isolated & alone.
Leila Slimani's original source novel emphasized how the supposedly cosy domestic environment of a family home can possess its own sense of threat. For Myriam, it has become a constraint from which she wishes to break free & resume her own career. It soon becomes clear that Louise has an unstable, erratic personality. The big bad wolf she impersonates to amuse the children exists not only in the world of picture-books & children's stories, but in the actual guise of a well meaning adult.
We never learn the true reason regarding this desperate need (an absent daughter is mentioned as a possible reason). Louise is so insecure of her role & position, she even resorts to try and preserve her place in the family by manipulating Paul & Myriam into having another child - even prompting Mila to do her bidding - as well as performing a disturbing sex magic ritual.
However, Louise is no mere psychopath. She, too, is a victim, particularly of social & economic circumstance; she lives in a less prosperous suburb, that is dangerous at night. She lives alone, and as her hold on reality begins to slip, suffers from paranoid delusions (the surreal scene with the octopuses in the kitchen).
In one early scene, the roles are reversed and it is Louise (the child), who is chastised by Myriam (assuming the role of adult) which flags up that no matter how enmeshed she becomes in the family's emotional lives, she remains a hired servant . In that sense, the film is a complicated study of a constantly shifting master-servant relationship (echoes of 'Parasite'). Myriam may have concerns about the nanny but they are superseded by her own needs, to maintain her independence as a working mother & devolving these responsibilities on to a substitute mother figure instead. Both Paul & Myriam prioritise their own needs (career, social life) despite misgivings about Louise. Sharply critical views on modern parenthood are provided by Paul's mother, Sylvie, as well as by a concerned teacher in Mila's school. She makes the wry comment that, 'Hurry up' appears to be the most commonly uttered phrased used by parents to children, in this fast-paced, time-poor society.
The film is mostly conveyed through the perspective of Louise's gradually disintegrating personality. As pointed out by others, the film inhabits a comfortable middle class domestic milieu but one which is skewed with an increasing sense of unease and whose apparent normality is undercut by the bizarre & erratic. It is made clear to the audience that something is not quite right, the dramatic tragic irony here is that Paul & Myriam choose to cast aside doubts for their own reasons.
I agree with other reviewers that the film's strength is Karen Viard. It is a complex central performance, calling upon many shifts of mood, a fateful combination of the caring & the destructive, a maelstrom of emotions who finds a refuge in another family's home but is unnerved by any perceived threat which may undermine her tenuous position with in it (the letter towards the end offering a nursery place to Adam, which acts as the trigger towards her final act). Louise is a hired-hand (service culture, market forces, the outsourcing of care) , who can be readily dispensed with at a moment's notice, without anyone realizing the tragic effect this may have on her fragile equilibrium.
Another Shore (1948)
An Ealing curio
The opening credits set the tone, tragi-comic, for this film & its rather ambivalent ending.
It is set against the lively backdrop of Dublin with its busy streets & pubs & stout/porter reminiscent of Flann O'Brien's haunts. Daydreamer Gulliver Shiels fantasizes about living on a paradisal island (Roratonga) far away from the noisy hubbub of Dublin. Penniless, he eventually comes up with an absurd notion of how to raise the 200 guineas for the trip. He is reminiscent of 'Billy Liar', fixated on a specific place rather than creating his own invented world (Ambrosia).
His dreams begin to get undermined, when he encounters, ironically on a beach of all places, Jennifer, a vivacious middle class English girl who seems attracted to him despite his apparent lack of interest. I did like the way the film flitted between imagined sequences & reality, like when Gulliver fantasizes about being on his paradisal island, in a ridiculous garb of grass-skirt & carrying a spear for fishing, only to be brought back to reality by the appearance of Jennifer, interrupting his fantasy. In a sense, this almost heralds the very conclusion of the film, if we view her as the woman who punctures Gulliver's dream.
The relationship between Gulliver & Jennifer, two opposites, does feel even more unbelievable than his bizarre attempts to obtain the money for his one-way trip -Gulliver's dreamy impractical personality seemed better suited to the young Irish country girl at the beginning who tolerated his quirky behaviour. I do think Beatty & Lister possess some chemistry, however, & Lister as Jennifer is a versatile actress, flitting between vivacity, but also pathos when she believes Gulliver is resolved to go to his island without her. They spend one apparent last evening in Dublin (with its myriad life) before they return to his lodgings & share a passionate kiss before she flees distraught in perhaps the most moving scene of the film (tragic). However, the resourceful Jennifer has one final trick up her sleeve as she perhaps engineers a bizarre situation of her own to prevent Gulliver from leaving.
The ending does feel bitter-sweet as Gulliver returns to his job as a civil servant with echoes of Gordon Comstock out of Orwell's 'Keep the Aspidistra Flying'. Matters of the heart take precedence over the world in his head. The film reminded me of 'I Know Where I'm Going' (Powell & Pressburger). The lead protagonist there does find her way despite being lost at first. You feel Gulliver has lost something of himself by the end of 'Another Shore'.
Tales of the Unexpected: Decoy (1982)
Edgy & suspenseful
I quite enjoyed this episode despite the mixed reviews. It begins with echoes of 'The Flypaper' with a crime scene as the police hunt a double sex murderer in a scenic park.
It is a suspenseful episode with Susan Penhaligion as a WPC who goes undercover to entrap a murder suspect. A dangerous game begins as she is used as bait in order to get close to the chief suspect, Burton.
The direction plays cleverly with our expectations. Burton comes across as physically intimidating with a paranoid distrust of the police. His behaviour is later sexually inappropriate, though he appears almost likeable in the pub, with the shaggy looks & personality, reminiscent of a young Jeff Bridges, usually associated with playing amiable types.
Equally fascinating is the taciturn Scottish DCI McLintock, a clear prototype for Taggart, who directs the operation as if he clearly knows more than he is willing to let on.
Perhaps I am easy to fool, or cannot spot the obvious but there was one scene where the audience is lured into thinking whether even McLintock could be the murderer himself when he toys with the locked park gate.
I enjoyed the episode as we realize McLintock has been directing proceedings all along.
I can understand the criticism of the episode. In its defence, it is the real murderer who is actually lured into a false sense of security. The episode is obliged to reveal his identity to the audience, hence the twist & some of the details which disregard logic.
For half an hour's entertainment, it is quite passable, and certainly not the worst episode in the series.
Tales of the Unexpected: Blue Marigold (1982)
Lost within an illusion
Watching this episode, there were uncanny echoes of the late Nikki Grahame (Big Brother) , the ephemeral nature of fame & the damaging cost that it can wreak upon a fragile personality.
Toyah Willcox has probably never been better in an acting role. She is the titular Blue Marigold, the enigmatic & beautiful star of a series of highly successful perfume ads. Marigold, however, is a fabrication. It is later revealed that her voice has been dubbed, and that the star of the ads actually speaks in a sharp-tongued Cockney accent.
Eventually, the ad company & its caustic director tire of her diva-like behaviour & she finds herself displaced by her rival. She soon begins to self-destruct and descend into alcoholism so that she even exhausts the patience of her married lover, Paul, the only real steadying influence in her life.
There is a haunting quality to this episode, the switch from the Swinging Sixties of London, flash forwarding to the early 80s & the sort of seaside resort with a faded glamour sung about by Morrissey (Every Day Is Like Sunday). She watches the tide roll in from the pier, a metaphor for her own washed up career. I also liked how the theme music from the Blue Marigold advert was used to convey a certain melancholic quality to proceedings.
Just when it appears Myra (Blue Marigold) has regained a semblance of dull normality, her equilibrium gets unbalanced once more when she reencounters Sophie, her former rival. She learns that Paul is now with Sophie & labours under the delusion she can win her ex-lover back from her rival.
The twist did not appear carefully laid within the structure of the plot, as with some tales (sleight of hand) but appeared to be fate's final cruel joke at Blue Marigold's expense.
It is a dark tale, a warning about the perils of fame, illusions & self-deception, & one desperate woman's inability to let go of the past.
Tales of the Unexpected: Kindly Dig Your Grave (1981)
How one woman's ruthlessness gets laid bare by her rival
One of the interesting things about watching archive episodes of this series is how it often allowed a less well-known actress - a familiar face on tv - the opportunity to showcase her talent. Here, the late Celia Gregory, under-utilized as the arm candy in the clunky 'Last Of the Midnight Gardeners' - is excellent as Fatima, a young French-Algerian woman, who attempts to beat a ruthless art gallery owner at her own game.
What is perhaps so interesting about this particular episode is how it is the two female leads who take centre stage with the male character fading into the background. The men in this episode are revealed as passive & weak, easy prey for the exploitative Madame La Grue, played by a scion of French cinema, Micheline Presle.
Mme La Grue not only exploits the artists who come to her to sell their work, but toys with them, like a feline playing with mice. She employs a psychological form of torture, taking advantage of their impecuniousness, with the result that she often pays a knockdown price for a piece of work that she knows will sell at a huge profit.
The second strand of the plot revolves around Fatima's burgeoning relationship with an ex-pat American painter, Graham, the stereotypical starving artist in the garret. Graham comes across as a bit of a drip (deliberate pun), forced to turn out landscapes when his real talent lies in painting nudes which the prudish Mme La Grue refuses to buy. When Fatima falls pregnant, she hatches a scheme to extract some much needed money from Mme La Grue.
Her ruse proves to be both ingenious as well as humorous after she threatens to expose Mme La Grue to public ridicule. A further twist is added when she begins to exploit her adversary's desperation in the same devious manner that the latter used at the beginning of the tale.
It is the tale of a biter getting bit & receiving a well deserved comeuppance. Part of the episode's charm is that it is set against the background of the artistic milieu of bohemian Paris.
The Long Good Friday (1980)
When Bob Hoskins was on the top of the world (ma)
I enjoyed re-watching the Long Good Friday, the late Roger Ebert perhaps summed it up best as really being more of a character study. I did think the IRA plot seemed a touch unbelievable, but perhaps less so now in our globalized world (organized crime syndicates from across the world, and linked to gangster states (Russia), who may possess a degree more ruthlessness than the local ones).
The plot, about a threat that emerges from the shadows to undermine a London crime boss, is almost secondary. It is about a ferocious, manic ball of energy & contradictions, who struggles to retain power when he faces an unseen force ultimately stronger than him. Shand's 'Firm', his 'Corporation', exists because he holds everything together as their ruthless leader. Instead, he comes up against an organized enemy that can replicate itself even when Shand takes out a couple of their top men.
It is the story of pride, hubris, & there are vague echoes of Macbeth & Lady Macbeth (I recommend reading Helen Mirren's memories of the film on its fortieth anniversary (Guardian) & how she strove to develop Victoria's role). If true, she completely transformed the role from gangster's moll to Harold's confidante & support, giving it depth. Despite a brief flirtation with Jeff, this film is also about Harold & Victoria's love for each other. We see them share their vulnerabilities and fears, which is perhaps all the more surprising when we realize what a ruthless man Harold is, capable of extreme violence. It humanizes what could have been a very amoral character.
Shand represents a certain type of gangster, he drives a solid Jaguar, whilst Jeff, his younger lieutenant belonging to the next generation, is educated & drives an open top Mercedes. It is Jeff, perhaps with one eye on usurping his boss, who deceives him, but also flags up Harold Shand's greatest flaw, his pride. He cannot face working with his adversaries, which would mean losing face. Instead, he opts to use violence against them.
As several articles point out (BFI, Guardian), it's also a film about politics & civic corruption (Councillor Harris). Bryan Marshall is excellent as the slippery politician, who along with Jeff, conspire to set Shand up for his fall. I also enjoyed the performance of Dave King as Parky, the corrupt senior police officer.
Barrie Keeffe toyed with writing a sequel but felt that it would be simply the law of diminishing returns. Personally, it might have been good to see if Victoria, of all people, managed to survive him & see a story about a strong woman in charge of a London mob (Mirren went on to play a strong woman in another male dominated world, that of the police, in 'Prime Suspect'). Her dealings with Charlie, the Mafia don, showed that she was an intelligent, shrewd woman. That storyline may have had more mileage than Harold simply reappearing as if he had somehow escaped from the clutches of death.
The music is memorable, Francis Monkman's theme, & John MacKenzie's direction energetic, such as the scene in the abattoir where we see things from the p.o.v. Of the men hanging from meat-hooks. It is also a film with a high degree of mordant humour.
It's a film that savours language (Sexy Beast) & is, at times, theatrical (Keeffe was a playwright), especially during Harold's declamatory speeches. It's a film that doesn't resort to gratuitous language despite inhabiting that milieu. Its energy may derive from the fact that Keeffe apparently wrote the first draft across a Bank Holiday weekend.
Tales of the Unexpected: Taste (1980)
Beware making a bargain with the Devil
Ron Moody did not always appreciate being typecast as Fagin, but such was the strength of his performance here as a sinister wine expert that I did not recognize him until the end credits revealed the cast list.
This episode inhabits the diabolic - suburbia meets the satanic - as a dinner host is offered a highly dubious bargain by his distinguished guest, a rather conceited television wine expert, who has taken rather more than an avuncular interest in the daughter of the house.
'Taste' is filled with a terrific sleight of hand so that the finale makes perfect sense.
The bargain made is indeed highly questionable as a young woman finds herself being accepted as a wager by her father, so confident is he that the wine expert will never guess the particular vintage in question.
There's great tension in this episode as the wine expert toys with his guests, tasting the wine on his palate in extravagant manner, as he draws closer & closer to the identity of precise wine in question, much to the nervous anxiety of the rest of the dinner party; it is a bravura piece of acting from Moody, who plays his role with demonic relish (reminiscent of say, Michael Kitchen in 'Brimstone & Treacle'). He is a cunning trickster who thinks he is one step ahead of everyone else. Or so he assumes.
And so, a pleasant evening eventually descends into the realms of the macabre as the game reaches its chilling conclusion.
Fortunately, order is restored & sanity brought to proceedings just when we think matters have taken too dark a turn.
Tales of the Unexpected: What Have You Been up to Lately? (1982)
Broadway? I did play Toronto once.
The test of a really watchable/memorable episode is whether you'd make an effort to catch it again. I enjoyed this particular episode first time round because of the acting on show & clever twist. Watching it a second time, I appreciated the nuances of Peter Barkworth's performance as Richard, a man clearly hiding more than is willing to let on.
It is the tale of two veteran actors, Fergus & Richard, once close friends, but whose relationship came to an abrupt end after they became rivals in love with Richard carrying off the girl, who later became his wife. It is an excellently structured episode, the beginning setting each man's respective domestic situation- one has been put in the shade by his more successful wife, the other is a violent, abusive alcoholic - before they meet by chance in London's Theatreland ,and the final dramatic ending involving a car chase & accident at high speed.
What makes this episode special is the characterization of Fergus & Richard, excellently played by Whitrow & Barkworth, and the dialogue throughout including Richard's exchanges with his wife . This episode has some memorable lines which capture the bitchiness & latent aggression that can exist in male friendships. I loved the scene in the pub where the men act like a typical pair of luvvies reminiscing, with Richard regaling everyone with an anecdote about 'Noel' (Coward) as if the two had been on first name terms, only for Fergus to cut him rapidly down to size. Old resentments soon come to the fore. Fergus can barely contain his bitterness, whilst Richard eventually drops his guard to reveal his own discontent.
This episode does turn rather melodramatic, appearing slightly at odds with what has gone on before, but everything finally makes grim sense with regards to the final revelation. Richard's opening question in the pub, giving rise to the title of the episode, proves to be rather ironic when we discover the truth.
Tales of the Unexpected: Vicious Circle (1981)
If Mrs Wilberforce ever turned to crime.
Another memorable half-hour, this episode plays with expectation & once again confounds them. It maintains the right balance of comedy & drama with a twist & ending reminiscent of an Ealing Comedy.
Siobhan McKenna is outstanding, she appears here as an endearing old lady who is the victim of a botched attempted burglary. I thought the episode toyed with viewers especially if they were aware of her previous role in the macabre, 'The Landlady'. There is a scene where she takes the young delinquent's flick-knife off him & one thinks this episode, too, may be heading into similarly murderous territory, particularly after we discover that the old lady's husband died as a result of a vicious mugging. Things are left ambiguous about whether Rex was the person who committed the crime.
Instead, this episode has a much more humorous twist so that we view the sweet, innocent widow as a much more knowing figure. She offers Rex sage advice, but he merely takes advantage of her apparent good nature & scarpers off with some prized jewelry instead.
Perhaps the best part of the twist occurs at the end where Rex is picked up by the police for a casual bit of theft (seen at the beginning), only to find himself in much deeper hot water (the old lady bathed his injured foot), accused of something he hasn't even done. Caught out, he attempts to lie himself out of trouble, much to the ridicule of the officers of the law. It is a fitting case of poetic justice after Rex's abuse of trust.
The final scene with Mrs Grady provides a witty finale.
Tales of the Unexpected: The Umbrella Man (1980)
It always rains in Manchester
John Mills, last seen as the tormented victim of childhood bullying (Galloping Foxley), shows the other side of his versatile acting skills here as a charming con-man, whose chance appearance brings about an emotional revelation.
I thoroughly enjoyed this episode as it involves two apparently unrelated storylines which merge seamlessly together so that we see things in a wholly different light (as in any good short story).
The incidental music at the beginning was interesting. We initially suspect that the confidence man has dark intentions, the background music is slightly sinister, in complete contrast to the much more jaunty accompaniment which heralds the storyline about a love triangle, between a married woman and a fellow commuter, Andrew (Michael Gambon, in typically insouciant form, breezily twirling an umbrella).
Jennifer Hilary is marvellous as Wendy, conveying both a luminous beauty and a passionate yearning. She & Andrew can barely contain their feelings for each other despite her husband's evident suspicion (I did like the slightly comic situation where they openly declare their feelings right in front of another (perplexed) commuter, simply reading a broadsheet, after her husband pops out for a minute). It was clever how something apparently banal as a newspaper crossword was used to convey Andrew's declaration of love for Wendy as well as prompting a cryptic interjection from her husband, Arthur.
The first half of the episode revolves around the Umbrella Man's scam & how he charms Wendy into buying one of his brollies. He senses that she is emotionally confused, offering her the consoling advice that 'No one is worth the tears of a beautiful woman'. Later, she watches him performing the same ruse & follows him out of curiosity. Instead of anger, she simply bursts into a fit of laughter at his effrontery.
The second half of the episode is about how Wendy & Andrew's affair is inadvertently revealed by chance after her husband spots that the umbrella she claims to have bought off the Umbrella Man, is the very same one Andrew claims to have had stolen, leading him to assume that they have had a secret assignation during the afternoon & are now covering their tracks.
Without spoiling the ending too much, this tale is really about another type of deception so that the viewer is left to wonder about who is actually the real con-man in this story.
Tales of the Unexpected: In the Bag (1982)
It literally is in the bag
This episode does start off quite slowly. A woman claiming to be acting on behalf of her sister, wants to retrieve some jewels that the sister's ex-lover, a married stockbroker, keeps in a safe. In exchange for doing the job, she will let the safe-cracker, Sam, keep all the remaining securities kept inside - worth $100k.
Sam is reluctant to take Cara on the job, a mansion set in the leafy environs of a university campus on Staten Island. So the pair of them decide to dress up as a pair of students in order to blend in & avoid suspicion. They opt to take every precaution possible including making sure they won't be caught carrying a wallet with any incriminating ID.
The episode's strong point in my opinion is that it plays against expectation. I thought that Cara was possibly using Sam as a smokescreen in order perhaps to commit a murder (revenge on her ex-lover, or two lovers in on a murder plot to kill the wife etc.).
The episode eschews this for a much more humorous storyline where the couple perform the burglary and have to endure a few narrow scrapes such as not trying to arouse the suspicion of the stockbroker's gardener.
I thought the ending had more in common with an Ealing Comedy. As Sam & Cara desperately try not to arouse the suspicion of a local policeman, they sit down & try to act like a pair of impecunious students enjoying a coffee. And therein lies the twist. It's perhaps more of a sleight of hand - the setting of a university campus, the lack of ID & wallets - but Sam & Cara's successful venture encounters the one random factor (happenstance) that neither envisaged occurring. There's an element of farce as they watch in agony as their loot - literally - is taken away from them.
The late Eddie Albert plays Sam with a lugubrious manner, Roxanne Hart is good, too, as the over eager Cara, whilst Terry Quinn makes a cameo as a lothario policeman whose intervention undoes everything.
Tales of the Unexpected: Stranger in Town (1982)
Beware a cunning fool
I enjoyed the idiosyncratic quality of this episode as an apparently good-natured eccentric arrives in a small town and proceeds to charm the local people with his exuberant behavior and fantastical tricks.
This episode almost had an other-worldly quality to it and it was interesting to read that it was remake of a British short made in the early 1950s. Quite a few reviews mentioned how the film had left an indelible mark on their childhood memories. You wonder if someone like Stephen King might have caught it on US terrestrial tv/seen it during a cinematic feature. It has that sinister sort of quality associated with his work.
The Pied Piper figure lures the towns-folk into a false sense of security; he has much more murderous intentions on his mind; and his cunning guise is simply a ruse to cover his tracks. Yes, it's quite implausible but then we are asked to suspend our belief as viewers, and I personally enjoyed this tale. I enjoyed how the early scenes were choreographed to the accompaniment of 'Swedish Rhapsody'.
Sir Derek Jacobi is excellent as the eccentric, jester-like figure performing with a comic flourish but whose real intention is to commit the perfect murder. It is his alter ego Columbus which provides him with this cloak of invisibility. Sally Potter, in conversation with Wendy Toye, (mid 1980s), described how the play was really about actors and the disguises they adopt.
...........................................................
Interestingly, Alan Badel played the Stranger in the original production. He went on to play a highly lauded portrayal of Edmond Dantes in a 1964 BBC production of 'The Count of Monte Cristo', a story which inhabits a similar milieu, a man in pursuit of deadly revenge and adopting a series of disguises to achieve this goal.
Tales of the Unexpected: Poison (1980)
The deadly venom of another kind
This story by Roald Dahl perhaps has more in common with the work of Somerset Maugham (exotic setting, a human truth) than his more macabre, darker stories. I came to it after listening to a BBC Radio 4 extra adaptation featuring Charles Dance as the narrator. It's perhaps the only story that I was familiar with at firsthand before seeing dramatized on 'TOTU'. The radio adaptation was much more stripped down (15 minutes) - there's no subplot about Timber's (farcical) assignation with a married woman, and the story's real powerful lesson comes at us from the side, with the observation that there is nothing more venomous, in fact, than human spite.
The setting of India (post colonial?) is key. Harry Pope discovers a krait, the world's most dangerous snake, is nesting beneath his bedsheets. In this tv version, there's an element of farce as Timber's tryst with a married woman gets spoiled by Harry's desperate cries for help. Timber is played by Anthony Steel, much more sympathetic here than his ambiguous portrayal of the adult, who may or may not be John Mill's childhood tormentor (Galloping Foxley).
Into the situation arrives Dr Kunzru, played by Saeed Jaffrey. First, he administers a serum, which may not be effective, before he and Timber attempt to asphyxiate the krait using chloroform. Without wishing to spoil things too much, the good doctor receives little thanks for his help except a barrage of racial slurs and insults. This is the poison of racism which can be just as hurtful.
This television adaptation takes the story a stage further though I'm not sure it is an improvement on the audio version. The radio adaptation felt more truthful with the Doctor's observation conveying an emotional truth. Andrew Ray tries very hard to makes the ending plausible but it had the touch of a B-movie, directed by Ed Wood, about it.
Tales of the Unexpected: The Hitch-Hiker (1980)
Sleight of hand
Dahl's ominous introduction is actually misleading as this episode leans more on the entertaining and brazenly audacious.
Paul Duveen, an American residing in Cambridge, picks up an itinerant vagrant, and so begins a series of events that see him booked for speeding, evade justice, only to discover that his passenger is a man with one final trick under his sleeve. We discover that Paul is a writer whilst Michael Fish, the hitchhiker, is much more enigmatic about what he does for a living. He is off to the races at Epsom, he tells Paul, despite not being a gambling man. Our interest is piqued.
It is a two-hander, though the late John Forgeham puts in a memorable performance as a stern, officious traffic-policeman. I did enjoy it when he asked - in his terse, offhand manner - if Paul was speeding for a number of implausible reasons . I liked how the power balance in the relationships seemed to shift during the episode, & not just between Paul & Michael - at one point, Michael feigns offence & asks to leave the car before Paul cajoles him back in .Who is actually in control here? The driver or his enigmatic passenger? Then there are the scenes with the policeman. Paul appears suitably contrite, whilst Michael is impertinent, as if he couldn't care less what book the law threw at him - precisely because he's already got it in his possession.
It is a well-structured piece for such a short drama, but loose enough to maintain a continual sense of the unpredictable. Ultimately, it is about a writer, the figure who thinks he is wiser than most (maybe even someone like Dahl himself), getting taught a lesson by a cunning trickster.
Tales of the Unexpected: A Man with a Fortune (1982)
Like a dark urban myth
This episode plays out like a morality tale about the perils of acting in a furtive manner as a rich American visits England to learn out more about his ancestors.
It has more of a slow-burning quality in terms of plot development, but you always sense that the friend's connivance at betraying her flatmate's confidence is not going to end well. There is a genuine sense of foreboding.
The final twist was well worth the pay-off and I thoroughly enjoyed Donald Eccles' ' cameo as the local vicar. Eccles was familiar playing roles dealing with 'odd disappearances', his face vaguely familiar until one realized that he was the chemist (photographic darkroom) in 'The Wicker Man'.
I really liked one telling detail; when he comforts the flatmate telling her that he's sure her friend will turn up soon, he doubles up in shock after she informs him that she has been now missing for a fortnight , gripping his throat to steady his nerves. In contrast to some episodes where the violence is gratuitous (Never Speak Ill of the Dead), this simple gesture tells us all we need to infer about what happened to the unfortunate friend in the company of her travelling companion.
Tales of the Unexpected: A Harmless Vanity (1982)
Great twist
I echo the comment about the unpredictability of these stand-alone one Act dramas. Occasionally they appear to take inspiration from a raft of sources. Some of the darker tales possess echoes of Clouzot, of Claude Chabrol, others seem to take inspiration from Ealing comedies (The Moles) or a comedy of manners (The Tribute).
I did think this episode could have been slightly better directed though perhaps that has more to do with me as I tried to re-assess what I had seen. I think it definitely benefits from a second viewing as we are never quite sure about what we are watching. Things are left ambiguous as the director maintains a delicate balance without revealing too much too soon.
A spurned wife is determined to come face to face with her love rival. In the meantime, she makes one final desperate attempt to change her appearance to regain her husband's attention. We are told that her rival looks a lot like she did when she was younger. Some episodes hinge on a clever sleight of hand, a telling detail, so that everything at the finale makes horrific sense.
We are left wondering what Mary has in mind for her rival. She lures her to a beach notorious for its dangerous currents, but the latter is a strong swimmer. Does Mary weep out of a feeling of guilt? At her plans being foiled? Or simply out of despair at what she has sacrificed for a marriage that is now on the rocks? Then who is the mysterious figure observing Mary and her rival from a distance? Has this spurned wife really resorted to the most desperate of measures to keep her husband?
Excellently acted by all, especially Sheila Gish, Keith Barron as the philandering husband and their two friends, who provide an element of comedy amidst the dark undercurrent.
Harry and Tonto (1974)
Interesting but more a good little film than a great one
I caught this on Talking Television Pictures, a Freeview channel (81) in the UK which has built up a solid following in recent years due to its showing of vintage shows and films including classics that have perhaps fallen out of favour, receive rare viewings (The Killing of Sister George) or whose lustre has dimmed over time.
It was interesting to read that Art Carney won an Oscar for his performance here. It is certainly winning in terms of appeal, but it comes as a surprise when you discover that he beat the likes of Jack Nicholson & Al Pacino to the prize in a film that was not otherwise garlanded with Oscar nominations.
Harry, a retired widower, finds himself uprooted from his familiar New York surroundings. After a frenetic start, the film settles into a slower pace perhaps echoing the Zen Buddhism read by Norman, Harry's oddball grandson with whom he builds a quiet rapport, two outsiders bonding with each other. This is an interesting movie though I agree with the review that believed the film's slow pace can detract from its main point, which is about how imagination transcends the generations (the final scene of a young boy on a beach, building sandcastles, Ginger, Norman).
I enjoyed the scenes where Harry connects with younger people, crossing the generational divide. He has a habit of whistling old songs, and Ginger, the young runaway - who has hitched a lift with him - recognizes one tune much to his surprise. She knows of Isadora Duncan, too, so that she reminds him of his first serious love. He connects with his apparently oddball grandson, taking a genuine interest in what he is reading (Zen Buddhism), treating him with patience & tolerance (in stark contrast to his brother) and even questioning him about drugs (specifically mind-expanding ones rather than the hard stuff).
I did find the occasional scene felt out of place. For instance, the scene where Harry is given a lift by a high-class prostitute. Later, we see him in Las Vegas ambling around, looking rather pleased with himself. The film often handles the delicate subject of old age & sex, but this just seemed to be ridiculously out of step & unbelievable. It sat uneasily with the earlier, much more tender and real scenes when Harry & Ginger take a diversion to visit his first love.
Harry is very much an outsider, which is what being old means in a world interested in the constantly new. He forms part of an odd couple with his pet cat Tonto, which leads to a range of mishaps that lead them on a haphazard, rambling journey crisscrossing America, via NYC to Chicago and then finally onto Los Angeles.
Harry eventually goes with the flow (Buddhism), becoming less attached to things (his car, the gizmo he hands on to the native American he meets in a cell), but more to life itself and the short duration that remains to him. Tonto's demise was handled rather abruptly, but perhaps that was the point. Perhaps, by now, Harry has accepted one of the tenets of Buddhism, the constant cycle of life. The final image has Harry following a cat, uncannily like Tonto, on to a beach where he finds a little boy happily building sandcastles (an echo of Harry as a child?)
Watching the film, I couldn't help being reminded of 'About Schmidt' which I consider a better film (in terms of pace), covering similar themes. It, is also about a retired widower journeying across America and experiencing a series of adventures, and perhaps benefits from a narrative regarding his daughter's impending nuptials.
Instead of a cat, the loner hero, Schmidt, addresses his monologues and thoughts to a child who he is helping to sponsor in Africa, and like Schmidt, Harry is a man without any real purpose in life anymore, now that his children are adults, apart from looking after Tonto. Interestingly, Jack Nicholson was Oscar nominated for a role very much akin to the sort of performance that saw Carney beat him to the Best Actor nod, a touching, humorous portrait of an old man at odds with the world around him.
Tales of the Unexpected: Clerical Error (1983)
Definitely not 84 Charing Cross Road
I thoroughly enjoyed this episode, the stern serious music (Purcell?) heralds the tale of a pair of middle-aged brothers who run a bookshop and practice an apparently fool-proof scam involving false invoices - for the supposed purchase of illicit material - sent to the families of the recently departed great and good..
At first, the son, Paul, appears to doubt the character of his recently deceased father, an outwardly respectable doctor and there is a hint of ambiguity. Gradually, however, the cunning scheme practiced by the dodgy booksellers is revealed in detail. What makes this episode memorable is the characterization & acting; it is a double act; one brother (Richard Preston) comes across as nervous and a worrier - his horoscope does not seem to bode well on the day of their eventual meeting with Paul; the second, (David Webb), is the complete opposite, smug and over-confident, practically bordering on hubris. The two of them are reminiscent of the Dukes in 'Trading Places'. What makes them such a delightful pair of conniving rogues is that they appear so outwardly respectable.
Paul (Hugh Fraser) tries to brazen things out with them but eventually relents to the brothers' demands out of fear of distressing his widowed mother (Evelyn Laye, in a dignified role). Under this pretext, he invites the brothers round to the family home to settle matters...
I enjoyed the twist and let's just say a shotgun features strongly in this episode for a number of reasons. There is a sense of menace, with Paul the exterminating angel, and of wrongs being righted, but it all ends in a satisfyingly plausible manner without any over the top melodrama.
Tales of the Unexpected: The Tribute (1983)
The Jewel in the Crown
This is a comic gem in my opinion, though I do agree with the reviewer who warned that it is easy to miss a key detail on which this whole episode turns.
This episode plays out like a social comedy as three aristocratic elderly ladies pay tribute to a former nanny to their children, more out of a sense of duty (propriety) than out of genuine care for her. She was a servant after all.
I loved the relationship between the three ladies and the interplay between them, each of them trying to mask their reduced circumstances but not fooling anyone or each other. They are three vestiges of a by-gone era (Empire) trying desperately to cling on to whatever little decorum - a la Hyacinth Bucket - they still possess in the face of a modern world they don't understand. I loved the social comedy of one of them living in a multicultural area.
The three ladies gather to celebrate Dench's life at Fortnum's & Masons, awaiting the arrival of Dench's niece who they believe will be joining them. Mabel is slightly domineering, Fanny sweet if a little dim whilst I liked the sharp-tongued eccentric played by Sheila Burrell, who appears at Fortnum's in her slippers, but turns out to be as big a snob as the others.
As the ladies wait for the niece, Mabel regales them with an anecdote about war-time rationing and the shortage of eggs. Dench had to make do without until a child who was a friend of Mabel's children offered the nanny half of her egg.
Into this social gathering breezes in a suitably glamorous Eleanor Bron, and without wishing to spoil things too much for anyone who may not have seen this episode, there is a misunderstanding and all is revealed. It transpires that dear old Dench actually possessed a much more colourful private life than anyone could have guessed with a rich admirer and a portfolio of shares. Let's just say that it is the three elderly women who are left with egg on their faces.