Tuesday 10 January 2017

Spies and the spying spyers who spy them - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Utterly Reprehensible James Bond and Sterling Archer, and Mark Gatiss' spy novels

Spoiler Warning - spoilers for a couple of episodes of Archer and some minor spoilers for both the book and film Casino Royale

I have just finished the classic British spy drama Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - and I mean the old tv version with Alec Guinness and not the relatively recent film starring Gary Oldman (which I had seen first) - and I enjoyed it a lot. It is quite a change of pace for someone born after the start of MTV when it is assumed any slowness in the telling or portraying of the story will instantly bore the viewer and flashy editing is needed to hold their attention. TTSS was about the possibility that one of the leading members of the Circus - the term used for the British Secret Service - is actually working for the Russians. George Smiley, played by Alec Guinness, was then recruited by the government to find out who this spy might be. With Smiley having recently retired from the Circus he was the perfect man for the job, he knew everyone involved, had the requisite skills but as the Russian mole was still active was beyond suspicion.   TTSS moved at a snail's pace. It seemed to take an hour for four people to enter a room and sit round a table. The film version is two hours long and I wondered what they had cut out from the seven episode tv show; and the answer seems to be cutting out the scenes of people moving from room to room and the long____pauses____between____people ______asking_____and_____answering______ questions. TTSS even showed people sitting and thinking; just Alec Guinness alone, thinking about things with no voice over to tell you what was going on in his head. Even comparing the set of the film and tv show highlighted the difference in how things are made now - the film set looked period appropriate but it still looked like a cool spy office, whereas the tv show set looked like the dullest civil service office ever. The tv show demanded you pay attention and it will not make it easy for you and a lot of stuff has to be worked out by the viewer. None of these are criticisms of TTSS but it was certainly jarring. The only real problem I had with the series was that I because I had seen the more recent film I knew who the traitor was. I might yet read the book.

Seriously, it feels like it takes an hour for these guys
to enter a room and sit round a table

I've always had quite a fondness for spy films, tv shows and books and it's hard, if not impossible, to approach this topic and not to mention the most famous fictional spy of them all - James Bond. I have watched a lot of Bond films but not all of them and I must admit there are lots of the old ones that blur into one long film where a villain in a volcano lair kills people using golddust while a man with metal teeth fights James Bond on a fanboat on the moon. While I think all the different Bonds have something to offer I think my favourite is probably Daniel Craig followed by Pierce Brosnan and it might only be because those were the new Bond films for me, I see the rest as "classic" Bond films. I have never really had a problem with the constant reinvention with Bond, he started off being a British spy fighting the Cold War but when in reality the Cold War ended the films moved into that new world quite well. Goldeneye made a lot of play out of Bond being a Cold War dinosaur, someone stuck in an old mindset when the world had changed around them. Daniel Craig's Bond is very much the "War on Terror" Bond, where he no longer fights countries but sinister individuals or organisations. For a number of reasons I should hate Bond, in terms of politics (including gender politics) I am a million miles from Bond - I don't think someone should have a licence to kill, I don't think the way to solve problems with other countries is sending in a spy to kill people and I don't think that if you are given a licence to kill you should drink quite as much as he does. There is a scene in Skyfall which bothered me a lot, even though I loved the film overall, at one point Bond meets a woman who can take him to the villain, and it came out that she was essentially a slave, forced to have sex with people. On the journey to see the villain this woman takes a shower and Bond joins her, and they have sex. I can't be the only person who thinks that if you meet someone who has forced to be a sex slave you shouldn't try to have with them hours after having met them. I don't think the filmmakers intended the scene to read in a creepy way but once it had occurred to me it was hard to ignore. But despite all these reasons to hate Bond I usually like the character.

Some of these Bonds seem a little bit
too much in love with their gun

I have only read one Bond book, Casino Royale, which I read after I saw after the Daniel Craig film of the same name. Two things struck me - first, the stakes were much lower and second, Bond doesn't really do any fighting. For the first point, the villain in the film is Le Chiffre a mathematical genius, poker player and banker for terrorists, warlords etc. where he gambled with hundred of millions of dollars of said evil peoples' money. In the book they play for millions of francs (considerably less) and Le Chiffre was a union boss who lost money when brothels were made illegal. You might think that this smaller stakes affair would make it more boring but I enjoyed the book a lot and often find the huge stakes some films (including Bond films) insist on risking predictable and dull. If the stake is the destruction of the whole planet then you can be pretty sure the good guys will win. The second point - Bond doesn't really do any fighting or shooting, the fantastic fight scenes of the film have no place in the book. Again, what could have made it seem boring actually worked in it's favour. Bond is a spy and spies don't get in massive gunfights, they are discrete, quiet, unassuming.


There exists a parody of James Bond so brilliant that I think I like it more than the Bond films. Certainly I like the central character a lot more than James Bond. I'm not talking about Austin Powers or even Dr. Bashir's brilliant turn as a Cold War spy in that episode of Star Trek: Deep Space 9. I am of course talking about the animated tv show Archer, featuring the sort-of superspy Sterling Archer. There is so much of Archer that is lifted straight from James Bond - he is a womanising spy who drinks too much and exists in some nebulous ill defined time period, the genius twist being that the resulting character is what you'd expect a sexist drunk to be- an utterly reprehensible person. Archer literally does not care if a stray bullet he fired hits a colleague and this is just when they're in the office, not on a mission. One of Archer's defining qualities is how he constantly brags about being a spy, how he uses it as a line to impress women, playing on the frankly abysmal efforts Bond goes to to adopt any secret identity.





But for all his faults there are things to really like about Sterling Archer and I think there are two episodes in particular that show his good qualities. First, we learn that Archer's long-suffering Butler Woodhouse is involved in a tontine dating back to World War I and because of this is marked for death. In an episode that saw Archer giving a baby a cut-throat razor it also showed that Archer can actually care about another person when he rushed to save Woodhouse. The second example is in my opinion the best episode of the series. In one episode we learn that Archer has breast cancer - the next episode showed him receiving treatment which he soon learned was bogus - Irish gangsters had been substituting the real medicine for placebos to make money. In revenge Archer goes on a rampage against the Irish mob. Originally it was assumed Archer was angry purely because his health had been jeopardised but over the course of the episode we learned that Archer had become friends with a fellow cancer sufferer, Ruth, an old woman he met at the pharmacy, who recently died, who perhaps would have been saved by having actual medicine. Archer showed more feeling in this one episode than just about the entire back-catalogue of Bond films. Also, I've not really mentioned this, Archer is a comedy, and it is really, really funny. Aside from Sterling Archer there are a group of brilliant characters around him from possibly evil scientist and radioactive pig cloner "Dr." Krieger, to rival spy Barry Dillon who although has a list of very legitimate gripes with Archer we see as the villain even before he became a KGB cyborg killing machine.

There is another fictional British spy who I think is deserving of a mention. This is a creation of Mark Gatiss, who is more famous for the things he's done on television - he is a member of "The League Of Gentlemen" and has written for Doctor Who and Sherlock (although he has appeared in both - just one episode in Doctor Who but in Sherlock he played Mycroft Holmes - a spy himself) this spy is from a novel he wrote - The Vesuvius Club. Lucifer Box was a portrait painter and socialite who lived at 9 Downing street at the turn of the 20th Century but he was also employed by the British secret service. Lucifer was a charming, extremely handsome and thoroughly bisexual hero who appeared in three separate novels.The first - The Vesuvius Club - is a great spy novel  as Lucifer tears around London and then Italy trying to work out a series of murders and a plot against Britain.

The different covers do a good job of showing
 the different time periods of the books


The unusual thing about the series is that the next book took place in 1930s America and the whole tone of the novel changed, this time the enemy were fascists who were trying to raise the Devil and the different enemy and plot are reflected in the style of the book. In the intervening period Lucifer has changed somewhat and it was suggested that the First World War affected Lucifer quite deeply. The third book changed again, this time taking place in the 1950s when a sinister organisation - Scouts - are trying to take over world. As each book took place in a different phase of Lucifer's life - blazing youth, more mature middle-age and finally on the verge of retirement it gave a different version of the character.

So that was a quick run down of some of my favourite spy tv shows, films and books, from a old and slow British drama to the animated ridiculous hyper-reality of Archer.

Sunday 1 January 2017

In Defence Of Sci-Fi - Big Ideas, Oscar Hate, Unbelievable Non-Sci-Fi and What It's Really About

spoiler warning - minor spoilers for Arrival and major spoilers for one episode of The Twilight Zone from 1960


I recently wrote a blog about the best films of the year and another blog about being disappointed by a lot of films this last year. In the second blog I ran through the list of films that I wished I had seen and one of them was Arrival. Well, I managed to see that film the other day and have to say it would certainly change my top ten of the year, right now I'd say number two after Rogue One. It's rather fitting that my two favourite films of the year are both science fiction, but drastically different films. I love science-fiction and when I think of my favourite ever films there are lots of sci-fi - Blade Runner, Alien, The Empire Strikes Back, Dr. Strangelove, Aliens.  This blog is called Ninety Per Cent of Everything which is a reference to a quote defending the quality of science-fiction, basically that ninety per cent of it is shit, but it's equally true that ninety per cent of anything is shit.

Most convoluted rizla game ever

There has been a habit of taking books, films, television shows that are science-fiction and refusing to call them that - many people do not consider 1984 science-fiction, even though it is about how technology effects a future world, the very definition of science-fiction. Dr. Strangelove, I film I've already mentioned as one of my favourites is according to Wikipedia is a "political satire black comedy film" with no mention of science fiction, to IMDB it is only a "comedy". Whilst the film is certainly a satire and comedy the film revolved around two pieces of technology that did not exist so I would argue it's science fiction. To many people it seems that a "classic" by definition cannot be science fiction, and science fiction that spoils that view is quietly re-categorised.

While I am very discerning when it comes to specific films, I love just about every type of science fiction. I love big space operas like Star Wars or Guardians of the Galaxy. I love clever, indie sci-fi like Moon or Ex Machina. I love dystopias from The Hunger Games to Children of Men. I would categorise superhero films as a subgenre of science fiction (which I understand to be a somewhat controversial position) as they usually involve technology that does not exist.

Guardians of the Galaxy - enjoyably over the top

Arrival is very much the clever big idea sort of science fiction film, it's not about space battles or exploding cities. The setup is actually very much like Independence Day (a sci-fi film I don't like), where a number of huge spaceships have arrived, hovering, perhaps menacingly a short distance above the ground.

But that really is where the two films depart - it seems that the aliens wanted to talk. The US government assembled top scientific experts, specifically linguist Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams) and physicist Dr. Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) to help them understand what is going on. Why are the aliens here? What do they want? Are they a threat? A lot of characters talk about what happened when the Europeans arrived in North America and Australia, how the more scientifically advanced group drove the other group to near extinction, will the same thing happen with the aliens? The film is about a lot of things and like all good alien films it's more about the nature of human beings as it is aliens. Amy Adams' performance was brilliant and it's very much her film. Not giving anyway any spoilers I am looking forward to seeing it again to better appreciate the clever things that are going on in the film.

I hope to see Arrival getting a lot of nominations for awards but I'm prepared to be disappointed. The Oscars have a long history of snubbing science fiction. Heath Ledger won an Oscar for his performance in The Dark Knight in 2009 but the film wasn't nominated for Best Picture despite being hailed by fans and critics as a great success. Looking at the other nominations that year it was certainly much better than The Curious Case of Benjamin Button if nothing else. The following year in what might have been a response to people asking where was The Dark Knight's Oscar nomination the list of nominees was raised to ten with cult sci-fi hit District 9 and sci-fi blockbuster Avatar getting nominations alongside more predictable Oscar fare.


District 9 - One of the films that benefited from wider Oscar nominations 

In my opinion Christoper Nolan is one of the best directors working today but has not received the awards and critical acclaim he should have done because he has largely done sci-fi. A case in point, there is already Oscar buzz around his next film, Dunkirk, a big budget World War Two film about the evacuation of Dunkirk almost as if the moment he moves away from sci-fi people see his films as Oscar-worthy. Looking at Christoper Nolan's back catalogue the majority of his work is either sci-fi or has strong sci-fi elements, before Dunkirk only Memento and Insomnia are not science fiction. The Dark Knight trilogy of Batman films are the high watermark of superhero films, Inception is about using technology to enter dreams and Interstellar is a sci-fi epic of space exploration, time travel and using technology to save mankind. In my opinion Christopher Nolan has not made a bad film, something very few directors can say.

Looking back on the winner for Best Picture Oscar, I went back to 1950 to find a sci-fi winner and couldn't do it. The closest to sci-fi was it's genre cousin, fantasy, when Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King won, which was surely an award for the astonishing achievement of the complete trilogy rather than that single film. So why do the Oscars seem to hate science-fiction? Well, I don't think they take it seriously, presumably for the ridiculous reason that it's about stuff that isn't real. The Oscars had no problem rewarding Titantic, which while despite being based on real events was one of the least plausible films I've ever seen, which must be something of a challenge. This is even worse in television - plot devices that the worst sci-fi writer would be ashamed of are trotted out regularly in soaps and dramas with little said about their realness or characters so unbelievable they would make Zaphod Beeblebrox look innocuous, but Doctor Who is dismissed by many because "that couldn't happen in real life".

The comparatively believable Zaphod Beeblebrox

What many people don't appreciate about science fiction is that it's not really about the future or other planets or aliens, it's usually about this time, this place and us. The reimagined Battlestar Galactica had more to say about the War on Terror than any other programme on American television, writing episodes about suicide bombings, foreign occupation, torture, civil rights, religious freedom and religious extremism, topics most non-sci-fi wouldn't dare go near. By setting it in another time or place gives writers a freedom to discuss these issues. One of the most famous examples of this was an episode of The Twilight Zone about aliens infiltrating America and how a small town tore itself apart with accusations and witch-hunts, all the while the aliens watched from outside the town, barely lifting a finger and letting paranoia do their work for them. The episode was clearly about issues closer to home in America, with paranoia against communist infiltrators hitting fever pitch.

Arrival clearly has a message about human cooperation and trust, discussing how almost by default powerful countries don't trust each other, too concerned about losing their own advantage. At a time when the person poised to become the most powerful man in the world seems eager to restart the Cold War arms race it's something to think about and shows the power of science fiction and I suspect there is already a sci-fi film in the works about an insanely arrogant and ignorant politician elected to run the universe.