Another post-Python solo effort, this time from Terry Jones. Given he’s always been a keen historian and that one of his pre-Python efforts was the previously discussed The Complete And Utter History Of Britain, it should come as no surprise that one of his solo efforts would be a historical saga (in the very true sense of the word “saga”).
Erik The Viking (The Director’s Son’s Cut)
Dir. Terry Jones / Dur. 75 mins
It’s a film with a troubled history. Released in the States as a 100 minute cut, it was cut back to 90 minutes for the UK release. Reception to both versions was decidedly lukewarm and so, for release on DVD some years back, Jones enlisted the help of his son Bill to trim another 15 minutes out, brining it in at a crisp 75 minutes.
Tragically, due to Terry Jones’s current advanced state of dementia, he’s no longer capable of any public appearances so instead Bill Jones filled ion for his absent father - fitting given that it’s his cut of the film that was being shown. Jones recounted a few tales from the filming (he visited the Maltese locations while on school holidays and appears briefly in the closing scenes - although wasn’t given a speaking role while his friend was!)
The film itself is a mixed bag. Even at 75 minutes, the pacing still isn’t brilliant and veers between being a bit slow in places to feeling a little choppy in others. On the other hand, it does have some nicely silly moments - John Cleese’s urbane villain Halfbad (an evil counterpart to his Robin Hood in Time Bandits) is good fun, the subtitled Japanese galleymaster is a classic Python-style gag and Terry Jones cheerful but tuneless Hi-Brazilian leader is good fun. The cast in general are on good form and their overall level of likeability, particularly with strong performances from Tim McInnerny, Charles McKeown* and Freddie Jones, keeps your interest going. Plus, to keep the whole “people who keep cropping up in Python stuff” vibe, there’s a brief cameo from Neil Innes too.
Erik The Viking is one of those curious films - it’s not quite as funny as it should be but you can't help finding yourself liking it anyway. In many ways, while not a massive success, it does to some extent achieve what Graham Chapman’s film Yellowbeard sets out to do but very much misses.
* Another frequent Python collaborator - appearing in Ripping Yarns, Fawlty Towers, Life Of Brian and Time Bandits amongst others as well as co-writing Brazil, The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen and The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus with Terry Gilliam.
We’re firmly into the post-Python realm with this one and now have, surprisingly perhaps, a Python-related film that I’d never seen before. Surprising given that it’s not only a Python film but also one co-written by and co-starring Peter Cook (yes, I did just make a Not Only..But Also.. joke) and that is has a truly impressive comedy cast - Graham Chapman (one of the other co-writers), Marty Feldman, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Peter Boyle, Madeleine Kahn, Nigel Planer, Spike Milligan, Beryl Reid, Cheech & Chong, Michael Hordern, James Mason(!). Kenneth Mars. It features four actors from Young Frankenstein (Boyle, Feldman, Kahn and Mars) and a who’s who of UK comedy. It even has an uncredited cameo from David Bowie (who was a big comedy fan so it’s unsurprising he’d pop up in Python-ish film at some point). So why is it so overlooked?
Yellowbeard
Dir. Mel Damski / Dur. 96 min
It’s a swashbucklling pirate adventure yarn in which Chapman plays the titular Yellowbeard who escapes from prison after twenty years to track down his treasure pursued by various parties, including his hitherto unknown son who has the treasure map tattooed on his head. It’s got a raft of talent attached to it with Chapman and Cook on scripting duties so why is it so obscure? There’s a simple answer to that - it’s just not very funny (I’m not even saying something that those involved don;t themselves think; John Cleese and Eric Idle have both cited it as one of the worst films ever made - bit harsh maybe). There are a few flashes of what could be a better film in there - Peter Bull as a simple and bemused Queen Anne raises a smile as does Spike Milligan being suitably Milligan-ish along with the thwarted attempts to smuggle aboard women only for the reveal to be that James Mason’s Captain has a thinly disguised woman as one of his officers which feels like a callback to Life Of Brian (“are there any women here?”) - but these moments are sadly few and far between. Overall, the cast are mostly wasted on material that just barely raises a smile.
Sadly, this film will be mostly remembered for being both the last film appearance of Graham Chapman (who as to die on the eve of Python’s 20th anniversary) and Marty Feldman (who tragically died while filing this). It’s not a bad film as such but, when compared to the other Python and post-Python efforts, it just doesn’t stand up.
A Note About The Screening
Bening that this isn’t exactly a shining jewel in the Python crown, there was no intro or Q&A for this one. What there was in a largely empty cinema (for which I’d booked my ticket well in advance) was a cluster of people sat around me who were of seemingly poor health. The woman next to me spent a fair bit of time coughing and blowing her nose, the man behind me spluttering and heavy breathing and the man in front snorting and, at one point, snoring (fair enough on that one - not the greatest of films). My main question here is - who sees a mostly empty cinema and thinks, “Yeah, I’ll make sure I get us seats next to one of the few people in here?” Spread out, folks, spread out...
OK, so this one is a bit of a cheat if we’re talking about the BFI season. Yes, they did show it as part of the season but no, I didn’t watch it there. Instead, I was lucky enough to nab the last remaining ticket (front row no less) for an anniversary screening at the Picturehouse earlier year. For while it may be the 50th anniversary overall of Monty Python, it's also the 40th anniversary of Life Of Brian specifically. I’m going to include it here as a) I saw it at the cinema and b) it was followed by a Q&A with Michael Palin and Terry Gilliam (hosted by David Baddiel) so I feel like it fits in here.
Monty Python’s Life Of Brian
Dir. Terry Jones / Dur. 93 mins
I genuinely waver sometimes between this and the Holy Grail as to which is my favourite of the Python films but I think that ultimately, I come down in favour of this one. While there is much to recommend Holy Grail, overall Brain just feels more satisfying. It’s not as if there’s a particularly strong narrative - it’s still largely a series of sketches strung together - but it at least an effective job of giving the illusion of a plot.
Given that this is a film that frequently hits the top of Best Comedy lists and has been picked over more than once over the last forty years, there’s unlikely to be much new that I can say about this. What I will say, though is that what struck me when watching it on the big screen for the first time was the secondary cast of repeated players which I hadn’t really picked up on that much before but was really brought to the fore on this viewing. Yes, of course you have Cleese, Chapman, Jones, Palin, Idle and Gilliam (quite a lot of Gilliam when you pay attention) all playing multiple roles but you’ve also got Gwen Taylor, Terence Bayler, Charles McKeown (future Gilliam script collaborator) and Neil Innes all playing multiple background and foreground roles as well. It’s a real ensemble piece and all the better for it.
Q&A
David Baddiel was on hand to question Michael Palin and Terry Gilliam who both seemed pleased that a forty year old film, mired in controversy at the time, was being well received. In fact, from some of the comments she was making, I gathered that the woman a few seats along from me was watching it for the first time and seemed to be enjoying herself (she was laughing at the funny bits so that’s probably a good sign.
Gilliam jokingly(ish) voiced his displeasure at being ousted from the director’s chair alongside Terry Jones on this one while Baddiel pointed out that he seemed to get his revenge with a number of scene-stealingly grotesque performances (namely the blood-and-thunder prophet and the insane prison guard). Somehow very sweetly enquired after the health of Terry Jones which Michael Palin seemed touched by (even though it was somewhat heartbreaking to hear that Jones is no longer capable of much speech due to his condition). All in all, though, it was a celebratory night and, for me, a pleasure to see a film I know so well on the big screen for the first time.
Alright, back to the actual BFI tomorrow.
When I stop to think about it, I realise that my love for Terry Gilliam films actually predates my love for Monty Python as a whole. That is thanks to another of his films (showing as part of the season but without a Gillaim introduction) - Time Bandits which I watched and loved as a nipper, even though I found it parts of it mildly disturbing (well, it is a Gilliam film after all). This would have been the second film of his that I watched (the first that he was sole director for) but my affection for it is pretty close (I think that Time Bandits and Brazil are his “best” films but this one has a definite nostalgic hit to it). In fact, I had an urge to watch it about six months ago and wrote about it back then so I’ll try to find something slightly different to say about it.
Jabberwocky
Dir. Terry Gilliam / Dur. 105 mins
What struck me when watching it with an audience is how funny it is. There was a part of me, even when watching it recently, that sees this a dark fantasy with a lot of comic elements but it’s very much a comedy. There are the obvious moments of broader comedy but there are a lot of nice little comedy moments - Dennis marvelling at Mr Fishfinger having been somewhere two miles away and expressing his own desire to travel someday; Passelewe’s oddly affectionate way of referring to the King as “my dear” and “my darling”; the nervousness of Neil Innes’s herald following the beheading of the previous one. All of these lovely little comedy moments that nestle inbetween the larger laughs.
It’s extremely cinematic as well, holding up well on the big screen. As with a lot of the best things, some of that cinematic effect was borne out of necessity - they didn't have full sets for a lot of sequences, begging and scrounging what they could so the grimt, dark and gloomy look disguised that fact that the sets were held together by spit and sawdust.
The Intro
Regular BFI interviewer Justin Johnson managed to tease a few nuggets out of Gilliam during the opening chat. One particular bugbear of Gilliam's was the fact that, without his say-so, the film was marketed in the States as Monty Python's Jabberwocky, leading most American viewers to expect a full-on gagfest in the vein of And Now For Something Completely Different and Monty Python And The Holy Grail. In an attempt to rectify this, Gilliam wrote to US film critics in order to advise them how they should view the film - a massive mistake he says learned never to repeat again!
When asked about how it was working with Harry H Corbett (who was reportedly not the easiest person to work with), Gilliam related an anecdote about Corbett going in for costume fitting. When being questioned about changes to his hairstyle for the medieval setting, Corbett was reluctant to have his hair cut so suggested wearing a wig. As the costume fitter started trying on wigs with him, she began to realise that the main reason he didn't want his hair cut was that he was already wearing a wig! You’ll never quite watch his performance the same way again once you realise that he spent all of his onscreen time wearing two wigs...
And now we enter into the realm of the post-Python efforts where their star starts to ascend from successful British TV stars into comedy megastars. While this wasn’t their first film, their initial effort And Now For Something Completely Different was a re-recording for the big screen of a selection of sketches from the TV show. The team were keen to branch out into new territory and leave the TV show behind so the two Terrys took the reins for their second film but first true big screen outing.
Monty Python And The Holy Grail
Dir. Terry Jones & Terry Gillaim / Dur. 92 mins
While this may be the first time they’re doing something for the big screen, the sketch show roots are still fully on display. There isn’t really a plot to speak of, other than King Arthur and his knights are searching for the Holy Grail - it’s really just a framework to hang a collection of themed sketches on. By no means a criticism when the sketches are of such high quality as these - the Black Knight, the constitutional peasants, the French taunter, the deadly rabbit of Caerbannog. For anyone who’s seen it, these descriptions alone should be enough to raise a smile.
Where it differentiates itself from their TV work is in the period authenticity - a combination of both Jones’ and Gillaim’s love of the grubby grimy medieval look. Everything is covered in mud and shit and it does it’s best to look like it’s set in the Dark Ages despite the limited budget upon which they were working. You can see here as well the seeds of later solo Python efforts like Jabberwocky and Erik The Viking - more on which in due course (little bit of foreshadowing there).
This was the first time for me seeing it on a big screen and with an audience (and an audience which surprising contained a large number of people who had never seen it before as evidenced by a show of hands during the introduction). What struck me is just how joke-filled it is - the gags start right from the opening titles and don’t let up pretty much all the way through. Judging from the audience reaction, I'd say pretty much all of those jokes hit the mark and there are a few new fans of Holy Grail floating around out there.
The Intro
This screening featured regular Python collaborator, former Bonzo and solo artist Neil Innes on introduction duties. Innes demurred being referred to as the sixth Python, saying that honour really belonged to Carol Cleveland. He talked about the music - he was originally hired to do the full score but, given the meagre budget, was only able to use a few musicians. As a result, the bulk of the “epic” score was provided by library music although some of Innes’ music remains, most notably the Camelot song.
As part of this whole celebration of things Python-y, the show itself was naturally screening. In fact, it was screened in 6 sessions over a whole weekend. Given that the time commitment for that is something in the region of 22 and a half hours (and I wanted to go to the Doctor Who event on the Saturday), I decided against sitting and watching the whole thing. Look, that’s a lot of time to sit in the BFI watching sketches and given that I may well have seen some of them more than once (certainly the second series which was the first one I had on glorious VHS and came clsoe to wearing thin thin along with the Young Ones, Red Dwarf and Blackadder), I feel like it’s OK to skip the actual show for now (I do plan to come back to it later) and get on with the rest of the stuff.
In the interim, here’s a photo-style blog (oooh, pictures) detailing Monty Python Explodes - the mini exhibition of pictures and paperwork that the BFI pulled out to accompany the season.
As the title implies, this one featured a personal appearance by an actual Python. Terry Gilliam was on hand to introduce this screening and talk a little bit about how, as an American, his influences were slightly different to the other Pythons who had grown up with The Goon Show and Peter Cook and Dudley Moore.
The Screening
Shown:- A compilation of clips from various shows and a complete special
I was particularly interested in this one as I had never heard of Enrie Kovacs before - a surreal and absurd American comedian who died tragically in a car accident at the age of only 43. He’s relatively unknown in this country and what he is known for are a smattering of film roles. That obscurity isn’t helped by the fact that a lot of his material was wiped under similar circumstances to much of the pre-Python stuff - studios saving money by re-recording over videotape. It’s only through the efforts of his widow Edie Adams to buy back a lot of that material that any of his stuff really survives.
From the sketches and special that were shown, it was easy to see why Kovacs was such an influence on Gilliam. He’s got a strong visual style with lots of absurdist gags - one particular segment that was free from dialogue featured the character Eugene walking past famous statues making the noises appropriate to their poses - a kissing statue making kissing sounds, the Thinker making humming noises; all very much the sort of thing you;d see in a Gilliam animation. There was a similarity to Spike Milligan so you can see why Gilliam connected with the other Pythons in a humour sense but the thing it made me think of most was probably The Muppet Show; that combination of humour, props/puppetry and sound/music that Jim Henson was so fond of.
It’s always difficult to know with someone else’s formative comedy influences that you yourself didn't grow up whether it’s going to be funny or not. Fortunately, this did hold up. There’s a rough and ready anarchic feel to a lot of the sketches (alongside some technically tricky stuff that must have required a lot of planning) along with an infectious joyn in the silliness of what’s being done that still carries forward today. If you can seek out some of his stuff, I’d recommend it.
The Intro
Gilliam talked a bit about how this alongside things like MAd magazine were an influence upon him as well as discovering that Kovacs spent a lot of time with the Mad magazine creators so there was definite crossover there. He cited a specific example of an Ernie Kovacs sketch which had inspired a sequence in Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas and which he only realised was an inspiration after the fact. Gilliam was also fortunate enough to meet Edie Adams, Kovas’ widow, at the Aspen Comedy Festival where he was attending with the other Pythons (including Graham Chapman “in urn form”). Following the intro, he joined the audience to giggle his way through the screening (and it’s a distinctive giggle!).
While the aforementioned Do Not Adjust Your Set is often cited as one of the main steps towards Python as it features Eric Idle and (at the end ) Terry Gilliam, I feel like this one is closer to Flying Circus content-wise and in tone.
The Complete And Utter History Of Britain (1x 6 episode series, 1969)
Starring and written by:- Michael Palin and Terry Jones
Episodes shown:- Series 1 Episode 1
Like the other two shows, this is a show that suffered at the hands of wiping policies of the ‘60s and ‘70s. Only the first two episodes exist as complete episodes while the film inserts for the remaining episodes also exist and were put together with new linking material from Palin and Jones (by Bill Jones, son of Terry). The first episode (shown at the screening) is, in fact, not the original first episode. Episodes 1 and 2 were vut together into a new version of ep 1 - by luck, the original director kept (low quality) copies of these first two episodes so they can be seen for comparison.
On to the first ep itself, this feels more like a lead-in to Python. Palin and Jones pull out some voices and characterisations that are familiar from Flying Circus sketches and the whole “presenting history as if it were being filmed today” with the whole anachronistic use of slang and terms not available back then feels very Pythonesque. Palin’s stone age estate agent selling Stonehenge definitely seems like he would be at home in a sketch with the others as does the overly bureaucratic jobsworth knight refusing to rescue a damsel in distress without the proper paperwork filled in.
Sir Not-Appearing-This-Event*
There are a couple of other shows that linked in too but have not been featured. Twice A Fortnight featured Jones and Palin as well as Graeme Garden and Bill Oddie (later to go on to fame as The Goodies with 1948 Show star Tim Brooke-Taylor while Broaden Your Mind starred Garden and Brooke-Taylor with Oddie joining alongside Jones and Palin as guest stars. Sadly, barring a couple of film sketches, Broaden Your Mind has completely disappeared from the archives. That does definitely put a crimp on trying to show it as part of an anniversary celebration...
*Yes, that is a Holy Grail reference which comes later but if you’re expecting logic and continuity, you’re probably reading the wrong series of posts...
Still going with the material that would lead into Monty Python and this screening (with no Q&A for this one) comprised of a selection of sketches from the Frost Report (featuring John Cleese and Michael Palin alongside the Ronnies Corbett and Barker), a chunk of the Christmas episode of Do Not Adjust Your Set, a hefty chunk of one-off special made for American TV How To Irritate People and a complete episode of the Palin and Jones created The Complete And Utter History Of Britain.
The Frost Report Sketches
The most interesting thing about these is that they show the evolution of two shows which, for a time, were seen as almost polar opposites. On the one hand, you have Cleese and Palin and the other you have Ronnie Corbett and Ronnie Barker, later to go on to mainstream comedy success in The Two Ronnies. What the Frost Report highlights is that a strong or weak sketch idea is carried by its performers and the four of them in these sketches are already good performers (Barker in particular in the examples shown). Of the ones shown, the best sketch involved two doctors (Cleese and Barker) being vague yet alarming in front of bed-ridden patient (Corbett). You can see the genesis of both shows here - the mistrust of authority figures that was so prevalent in Python and the love of nonsense language that both played around with. The weakest was one inj which Barker plays a distant father to Palin’s returning son - solid performances but the script feels a little undercooked.
How To Irritate People
Coming out of the format of The Frost Report with a smattering of At Last The 1948 Show thrown in, with Cleese serving as an anchor figure tying together the sketches on the theme of irritation (very John Cleese), this was a one-off made to crack the American market in 1968. In many ways, it’s the beginning of the link between 1948 Show and Python as Graham Chapman and Tim Brooke-Taylor are both present but with the addition of Michael Palin (and Connie Booth later to be co-creator of Fawlty Towers and future ex-Mrs Cleese). There are even the beginnings of a Python classic in here as the car salesman sketch in which Chapman attempts to return a faulty car to a slippery and disinterested Palin is very much the forerunner of the Dead Parrot sketch. It’s not fully formed yet - there’s the nugget of something there but it’s not yet been teased out into something funny. This special also explicitly names the standard Python woman as Pepperpots - something they’d be referred to as in scripts but not on screen in Python.
I’ve already talked about Do Not Adjust Your Set so won’t go into further detail here but The Complete And Utter History Of Britain probably deserves a few words on its own so let’s cover that off next time.
The second part of a double bill alongside yesterday’s At Last The 1948 Show and another of the shows that lead in to Monty Python.
Do Not Adjust Your Set (2 series, broadcast 1967-69)
Starring and written by:- Michael Palin, Terry Jones, Eric Idle, David Jason, Denise Coffey
Episodes shown:-
Regular guest performers:- The Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band
Despite the presence of four (Terry Gilliam provides animations in the last few episodes - although some animations survive, those episodes are lost) of the main Python team, this one feels less like the prototype for Python and more like the prototype for later anarchic kids shows like Tiswas. For this show was indeed a kids show, albeit one that adults would come home early to watch.
There are, of course, some signs of Python here and the inclusion of the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band as both regular musical guests and participants in sketches, coupled with the occasional slightly risque joke, gives it an odder feel than just your standard children’s TV show. What’s interesting is that both this and 1948 Show occasionally have similar premises for sketches - both feature a sketch about antiques experts identifying items (which then skew off in different directions). This isn’t a case of one copying the other but I think highlights the similar ways in which both sets of comedic minds were working.
There’s another case of What Could Have Been here. David Jason has so cemented himself in the nation’s collective mind as Delboy Trotter of Only Fools And Horses fame* that it’s easy to forget that he was successful in other shows before that (making his comedy debut here though). He adds a more physical / slapstick element to a lot of the sketches, notably the silent comedy inspired recurring sketch Captain Fantastic. Could there have been a world where the Python line-up also included Marty Feldman, Tim Brooke-Taylor and David Jason?
It's enjoyable stuff, especially the Bonzo interludes (but then I am a big Vivian Stanshall and Neil Innes fan) but I think the 1948 show stands up better by today’s standards.
Q&A
This focussed largely on the efforts that the BFI have gojne to track down, restore and reconstruct missing episodes of both series. Of the two, the 1948 show has fared better being now almost complete. Much like Doctor Who, a fan taped the audio for all episodes off air and the BFI has used this as a guide to reconstruct the episodes as aired from compilation episodes and various film trims (alongside discoveries of complete episodes). One episode has been completely reconstructed from a variety of sources. Do Not Adjust Your Set, however, is missing almost all of the episodes from the second series bar one. The search still continues though and the BFI always live in hope of finding more stuff.
*Although he’s also firmly ensconced in mine as Dangermouse.
During the run of posts on comedy archeology (they haven’t completely gone away - good or bad news depending on your point of view, I guess), I briefly touched on the impact of Monty Python upon my formative sense of humour. The BFI (I should get getting paid for the free advertisements) is currently running a series of screenings, frequently with an accompanying Q&A, that cover pre, during and post Python works and influences from the main stars. Given their impact upon me and my self-appointed title of comedy nerd, it was always more than likely that I’d be going along to a fair few of these. I’m happy to say that I did not confound expectations on this front.
At Last The 1948 Show (2 series, broadcast 1967)
Starring and written by:- John Cleese, Graham Chapman, Marty Feldman, Tim Brooke-Taylor
Episodes shown:- Series 1 Ep3, Series 2 Ep 4
Guest performers:- Eric Idle, Bill Oddie, Barry Cryer
Of the two, this show is closest to being a proto-Python. A bookshop-based sketch feels very Pythonesque with Cleese as the increasingly irate bookshop owner facing Feldman’s obscure requests and the phrase “and now for something completely different” is even deployed in one episode. It’s also a vision of how different Python could have been with Feldman and Brooke-Taylor as the two of them bring a more visual, physical element to a lot of the sketches (Feldman with a more old-school silent movie feel, almost channelling Harpo Marx at one point, while Brooke-Taylor displays the kind of frantic energy that would be on display in the Goodies).
In fact, some 1948 Show sketches were later appropriated by Python. A sketch in which Graham Chapman wrestles with himself would show up in both Live At Drury Lane and Live At The Hollywood Bowl and the much more famous “Four Yorkshiremen” sketch actually originated here before being incorporated into Python live shows.
There’s some material in here that is genuinely funny and still holds up and a sense that these are four performers still seeing what they can get away with accompanied by “The Lovely” Aimi McDonald who skewers the 60s stule dolly bird hostess. The show was one of those that was largely wiped with only two of the thirteen episodes held in the official archives by the mid 90s. Thanks to the ongoing programme of recovery the BFI operates, almost all of them have been recovered or reconstructed from various sources (more on that in the next post).
Q&A
Present for the Q&A were Tim Brooke-Taylor and the Lovely Aimi McDonald with Barry Cryer chipping in from the audience. A clip from John Cleese showed him talking about the origins of the show which Tim Brooke-Taylor then disputed! Barry Cryer told us how Marty Feldman was one of the few actors able to favour two cameras at the same time while Brooke-Taylor told us how he’d wished he’d been in Monty Python so he could have afforded a bigger house… Aimi McDonald then also revealed her true Glaswegian accent.
A good start to the Python festivities. Don’t worry, there’s more to come…
It’s become abundantly clear to me that the 60s and 70s in particular were a time when TV was allowed to go to some pretty out there places. It was also a time when the writer, once they’d proven themselves somewhere else, could be given free rein to do whatever they wanted (provided of course that they filled the requisite number of weeks and stayed within budget). This brings us nicely back to another offering from Bob Baker and Dave Martin, creators of Doctor Who’s K9 and writers of previously written about serial King Of The Castle.
So What Is It? Sky, a seven episode single serial; aired in April/May 1975
What’s It About? Three rural children are surprised to discover a creepy David Bowie-esque time-travelling alien boy called Sky. In trying to get back to his regular time, Sky is confronted by a manifestation of the Earth’s immune system, Goodchild, determined to fight off this outside “infection”. Odd as that may sound, that really doesn’t do justice to just how strange this story is, especially for a children’s show.
Why’s It Good? Because it is quite frankly bonkers. It’s a weird mix of sci-fi and fantasy (often labelled science fantasy - a term often thrown at Doctor Who given the magical hand-wavey nature of a lot of the “science” on the show) and again, like some of the other shows, throws up some creepy images for the time. Sky’s emergence from and disappearance into the leaves; the hippy family being attacked by nature in their van; the weird man-crow person at the end. It also has a fairly prescient message about the dangers manages poses to the ecology. That said, it’s not necessarily one hundred percent successful in places - the effects are limited by the budget and technology of the time in places (the old Doctor Who problem of ambition outstripping capability) and it feels a little like a five episode story with a two episode story bolted in the end (another 70s Doctor Who trait). That said, it’s still an engaging watch and definitely up there with the stranger children's TV offerings of the time.
70s Tropes:- Dead/Missing Mothers (yup, Roy’s mother is conspicuously absent - another victim of 70s TV Mother Disease); Creepy Theme Music (check - another one in the weirdo theme tunes box)
Let’s pick up with another one of these. One thing to point out is that these are shows which I did not watch at the time (largely because I either wasn’t born or was too young) and have not grown up watching on VHS/repeats like Doctor Who and Blake’s 7. I’m coming to these fresh with the eyes of an ostensibly grown man (albeit one who is spending his time watching 1970s children’s television) so there is no nostalgia element for me in any of these.
So What Is It? Children Of The Stones, a seven episode single serial; aired in Jan/Feb 1977
What’s It About? Professor Adam Brake and his son Matthew arrive in the village of Milbury where the inhabitants are behaving strangely and odd things seem to be going on connected to the local stone circle...
Why’s It Good? It genuinely feels like a horror film made for kids. It has almost the same feel to it as something like the Wicker Man and plays with a lot of the tropes of a certain type of British horror - locals behaving strangely, ominous creepy music, etc. It’s pretty surprising that something like this got made for kids at all. One aspect that I enjoyed is that it avoids one of the usual tropes of adults refusing to believe the kids when told that something odd is going on. Professor Brake listens to his son and helps him work out what’s going on - a nice refreshing change. The cast are on good form, in particular Gareth Thomas (Blake of Blake’s 7 fame) as Professor Brake and Iain Cuthbertson clearly enjoying himself as Hendrick. I’m not quite sure that the explanation of what's going on quite added up for me - it felt like there was a bit of a leap made to get there but overall, this was a delightfully creepy 70s show.
70s Tropes:- Dead/Missing Mothers (seriously, was there some sort of epidemic that struck down the mums of 70s TV characters?); Creepy Theme Music (this one’s absolutely terrifying - weird music and creepy shots of megalithic stones - definite nightmare fuel for the littluns)
Books. I genuinely don’t remember a time when they weren’t a daily part of my life. I’ve always been a dedicated reader and I always will be a dedicated reader*. There are the standard childhood influences that have been shouted about and lauded as inspirations over the years, from Roald Dahl through to JK Rowling and Cressida Cowell, but there is one man who rather quietly, almost anonymously inspired a number of generations to pick up the printed page. It just so happens that he also managed to combine two of my favourite things…
It was 1983. I was a young spotty herbert of the schoolboy variety. We’d just moved to a new house and my favouritest programme in the world (well, along with the Muppet Show) was celebrating its twentieth anniversary. This was in the days before mass releases of even VHS tapes of shows and so this show in particular released tie-in novels (published by a company called Target) in which previous and current stories were adapted for the printed page. As I sat on a bench in the playground, I had in my hands a shiny new book (and it was shiny too, with a special silvery cover for the twentieth anniversary) which covered the celebratory birthday story.
The show was Doctor Who. The story was The Five Doctors. The author was Terrance Dicks.
Dicks started off as an assistant script editor on Doctor Who before becoming head script editor and penning the last Patrick Troughton story, The War Games (revealing the Doctor’s origin as a Time Lord), remaining in place throughout all of Jon Pertwee’s tenure. He penned a number of stories, including Tom Baker’s debut, but he is best known and loved for his Target novelisations. In all, he wrote more than sixty of them and, at a time when the show was not repeated or available, this was the only way for many of us to experience the past stories.
He had a number of phrases that he liked to use and they cropped up frequently:- “The mysterious traveller in time and space known only as the Doctor”; “a wheezing, groaning sound” to describe the TARDIS dematerialising/re-materialising; “capacious pockets”; and individual descriptions of the Doctors (Peter Davison’s Doctor having a “pleasant open face”).
Dicks sadly passed away on 29th August but the heartwarming thing has been the number of tributes paid to him by people who discovered a love of reading thanks to his work. He certainly helped to encourage my own love of the written word. Farewell, Terry, and thanks for the wrods.
*This definition is not based on numbers but intent. You could read two books a year or you could read two hundred books a year - if you read for pleasure, betterment, both or any other reason really then you are a reader.
More preview screenings for something that’s yet to go on general release. Today’s film is one that’s deeply personal as well as being an intense labour of love for actor turned first time writer-director Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje.
Farming (2019)
Dir. Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje / Dur. 102 mins
In A Nutshell:- A young Nigerian boy fostered by a white family in Essex falls in with a skinhead gang to escape their abuse and his own identity.
The Good:- It’s powerful stuff - based on Akinnuoye-Agbaje’s own past, the title refers to a practice that I certainly didn't know about. “Farming” is the unofficial name given to the practice which became common amongst Nigerian and other West African families from the late 60s onwards in which parents studying and working in England would give their children over to white families to be fostered. The main character, Eni, is left with white foster parents from 2 weeks old to the age of 8, returns to Nigeria where he doesn’t fit in, is brought back to his English foster parents and, not fitting in anywhere and denying his own race and heritage, falls in with a group of skinheads who abuse and tolerate him as a “pet”. It’s uncomfortable viewing but holds your attention throughout largely thanks to two captivating main performances - Zephan Hanson Amissah as 8 year old Eni and Damson Idris as the 16 year old Eni. Both absolutely nail their performances and are never less than compelling to watch. The rest of the cast acquit themselves well too but this film really belongs to the both of them.
The Bad:- The film was workshopped over a number of years as part of an initiative through the Sundance Film Festival and there are one of two scenes as well as the initial cold open that feel a little too “Hollywood” in feel and dialogue. This is a minor niggle though and doesn’t detract from the film as a whole.
The Verdict:- It’s an affecting and difficult story, carried off admirably by two great central performances, and a strong debut for a first time director. It’s not an easy watch in places but it is a film that’s worth your time.
WARNING! HERE BE SPOILERS!
I was going to try and produce a nifty spoiler-free review on this one but, in order to talk about it properly, I am going to make reference to the end of the film a little so, if you haven’t watched it yet and are planning to do so, consider yourself suitably shied away from this here post.
I’ve been a fan of Tarantino’s work since watching Reservoir Dogs at the cinema over 25 years ago. In fact, it was Tarantino along with Kevin Smith and Robert Rodriguez who made me believe that feature filmmaking was possible for someone who didn't have a major studio budget behind them (“inspiration” or “blame - you can choose on that one). That’s not to say that I’ve uncritically enjoyed all his films - in my view, Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained both could have benefited from tighter editing on some scenes. That said, I’m always going to watch a new Tarantino effort. So watch it I did.
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Dir. Quentin Tarantino / Dur. 161 mins
In A Nutshell:- Fact and fiction collide in a love letter to film and TV of the ‘60s as fading TV star Rick Dalton and his stuntman Cliff navigate their way through Hollywood life.
The Good:- There’s a certain style and feel to a Tarantino film in terms of dialogue, character and look that’s very much present and correct here. His love of playing with the form of film is present in the scenes presented from various different TV shows and films (as well as authentic posters for the films Dalton makes, notably the Spaghetti Westerns). Di Caprio and Pitt are on good form and bounce off each other well,convincingly portraying the friendship between the two men. It’s a fairly languidly paced and meandering film but that actually works in its favour. For a film that’s nearly three hours, it doesn’t outstay its welcome, largely in part due to the compelling screen presences of Di Caprio and Pitt. It’s a more contemplative affair than some of Tarantino’s other works, musing on the fleeting nature of fame and the fickle nature of being a lead in Hollywood - today’s hero lead is tomorrow’s bit part bad guy. It;s also always nice to spot soke Tarantino regulars turn up throughout the film (hi, Micahel Madsen!).
The Bad:- Margot Robbie is completely underutilised as Sharon Tate, seeming to spend most of the film either dancing or watching herself at the cinema. Which brings us on to the main thing that I’m not sure about with this film - the blending of real life characters and situations into a fictional film. For me, there’s something about it that doesn’t quite sit - from the unnecessary and cartoonishly caricatured sequence with Bruce Lee through to the Inglorious Basterds-style rewriting of events at the climax of the film, there was something about using a fictionalised version of real people that just seemed a bit off.
The Verdict:- Despite my misgivings about the blend of fact and fiction, I still enjoyed the film overall. While not on a par with the early films like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, I’d say that it gets much closer to those than previous efforts like Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained. If you like Tarantino films, you won't be disappointed by this one.
Once again, getting my money’s worth out of the old BFI membership. (There’s a strong possibility that, given the number of BFI-related events I’m going to over the next six weeks, this blog may well start to read like an advert for them. Well, why not? They’re great. A place for film lovers that’s generally staffed by film lovers too. See also the Prince Charles Cinema on this front.*)
Bait (2019)
Dir. Mark Jenkin / Dur. 89 mins
In A Nutshell:- A local Cornish fisherman struggles with his livelihood and the impact of gentrification on the village he lives in.
The Good:- It’s a visually arresting and distinctive film. Shot on a 16mm clockwork camera and treated with dirt and coffee to give it a deliberately scratchy and washed out look, it feels like a forgotten film from the thirties. Add to this the fact that all sound was dubbed on later in post-production and it gives a low-fi, slightly heightened feeling. The cast are generally pretty good (although the post-production dubbing makes their performances feel a little odd - like a dubbed foregin film that happens to be in English) but the standout is Edward Rowe as Martin who gives a performance that propels the film along. ** Certain scenes feature some intercutting and flash forward shots that require a bit of attention, in particular an intercut argument scene between several different characters at once (which turns out to be a smart way to disguise what would otherwise be a lot of exposition). While it does deal with serious themes and situations, there is a strong vein of humour laced throughout as well.
The Bad:- It’s so distinctive a style that it may take a couple of minutes to ease into. I found that, during the first few scenes, I was slightly put off by the dubbing until I relaxed into it. I also felt that this technique made a couple of the performances seem a little wooden initially but it’s a minor complaint.
The Verdict:- If you’re looking for a distinctive, fresh and interesting piece of independent British filmmaking with something to say then this is definitely the film for you. It may take a little bit of getting into but it’s well worth the effort.
* I realise this isn’t massively useful information if you live outside of London but I don’t live outside of London so it’s really rather handy for me.
** I strongly resisted the urge to say that it anchors the film. Please be appreciative.
I’ve talked before about how great I think Fleabag is so it should come as no surprise that I joined the frantic throng that took to the web in a desperate attempt to get tickets when the “last ever, no really” performances of the original play/monologue were announced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge. What was surprising was that I managed to get tickets. So I went to it.
Play Vs Television
There are some differences between the theatre version and the TV version, naturally enough. The theatrical version is considerably shorter, clocking in at just over an hour while the first series (which uses the play as its basis) tops the two and half hour mark*. There are some characters who don’t really feature much - the father gets a couple of mentions and the evil stepmother is mentioned in passing a couple of times but form a much bigger component of the series. There’s a recurring customer who features in the play and not in the series whereas other elements (the stolen statue, the silent retreat, etc.) are solely part of the TV show.
The Show Itself
It’s simply staged with a chair on a raised platform and some lighting and sound effects but the staging is not the important thing. This is a piece about writing and about performance. From the moment she comes to the moment she leaves the stage, Phoebe Waller-Bridge has the audience held. Sure, you could argue that there’s an element of fandom to most of the audience but it’s a strongly written piece with an assured and confident performance to back it up. Even if you hadn’t seen the show, I’d imagine it would be impossible not to be swept up in it.
I was particularly interested to see how it would play out in front of an audience given that there isn’t one (understandably enough) for the TV version. Waller-Bridge certainly knows how to play an audience - stringing out a look or a silence until absolute breaking point before delivering a killer line or switching tones effortlessly without losing the crowd. It’s an extremely funny show, sure, but the emotional climax provoked gasps of surprise from the audience (there are some differences to the TV version).
The Verdict
It was great - funny and emotional in equal measure with a powerhouse performance from Phoebe Waller-Bridge (including some really very filthy mime). Definitely glad that I got to see this one in person. Or, if my sister-in-law ever sees this who didn't some along with my brother and me as I could only get two tickets, it was shit.
Aan Afternote Note On People
I feel like we might have to start giving people some basic training on how to behave in the theatre. At one point, I actually had to ask the two women in front of me to stop bloody talking. I came to theatre to listen to PWB, not their inane chatter. They did shut up but I shouldn't even have to say that in the first place. This was compounded by someone’s phone alarm going off for nearly two minutes during the most emotional part of the play. Just a little bit of thought for other people, here. A live event like this is a shared experience. Your shitty behaviour could spoil it for someone else. Don’t be a prick. There, rant over, as you were.
*The episodes are around 25 mins each - slightly short for a BBC show and more like an American one.
