I found a site called Hamilton Book, which apparently is an aftermarket book and blu ray/DVD retailer. They had a number of blu rays on sale pretty cheap, and some where cheap enough—like $5 a throw—that I took a flyer on some of them. This is one of those. It’s an Olive Blu Ray, so the presentation is nice, but they aren’t really that great with extras. I’m sure this hurts them in today’s market, where so many companies like Severin and Vinegar Syndrome and Arrow are giving obscure films really deluxe editions. So I certainly wouldn’t have paid the $30 list price for this film, but $5? Sure, why not.
Although made after the early heyday of the Bond craze, this spy thriller hits a nice edge between John LeCarre cynicism and Bondian (if not nearly that overblown) action. Indeed, featuring an aging, somewhat past his prime British spy who suffers from PTSD, it somewhat foreshadows the emotionally wounded Bond played by Daniel Craig. This keeps the viewer guessing throughout, as we’re never quite sure just how bleak things are going to turn by the end.
Aging spy John Craig is nearly used up after, it is suggested, being heavily tortured by the Soviets during a previous mission. He is clearly considered a potential liability by his M-like boss, Loomis. Loomis is an ice-blooded civil servant of a bastard played by a perfectly cast Donald Pleasance, who of course went on to play a far more famous Loomis in the future. Loomis clearly considers Craig to be expendable. Indeed, that might be charitable. It’s quite possible he intends to use Craig as a sacrificial goat to get him out of the way.
Loomis’ American opposite number is Blake, as played by Dana Andrews. Neither Andrews nor Pleasance get enough screentime. However, it’s fun whenever one of them appears, and they nicely do have a couple of scenes together. Blake wants Loomis to procure the film’s McGuffin for them—it’s a guy, but it doesn’t really matter—but isn’t willing to pay Loomis’ price.
Loomis decides getting the McGuffin is an attractive proposition nonetheless, and sends Craig out to find him. Lurking in the background are a team of younger English spies, a woman and a brutal, barely restrained younger male who hates Craig. We’re never sure if they are around to aid the older spy or to make sure he doesn’t come back, which nicely keeps us guessing.
Innocent Bystanders was made between Sean Connery’s final turn as Bond and Moore’s assumption of the part. As we know, the Moore Bonds quickly grew ever more outlandish and goofy. However, Innocent Bystanders more properly reflects the darker mood of the previous the final two Connery-era Bonds, George Lazenby’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, as well as Connery’s obviously disinterested return to the role as a revenge-seeking 007 in Diamonds are Forever.
Perhaps to drive the comparison home, Craig is played by Zulu star Stanley Baker. Baker looks quite a lot like Sean Connery, especially from certain angles. He’s a more blue collar version, however, although his long hair and bushy mustache heavily evoke the Connery of 1974’s Zardoz. He ably plays the various sides of Craig, always on edge yet growing more sure of himself as the danger grows deeper. However, we’re kept on edge by the possibility that the brittle spy may crumble at the worst possible time.
Geraldine Chaplin (daughter of Charlie Chaplin and granddaughter of playwrite Eugene O’Neill, how’s that for a lineage?) was nearing 30 when this came out but seems much younger. She plays the female lead, who gets involved with Craig. He allows the relationship to grow intimate, a fact that he clearly knows is a bad idea, especially since the naive Chaplin seems to fall for him as soon as he’s bedded her. Presumably this is a commentary on Bond’s habit of nonchalantly falling into bed with any woman that drops into his orbit, many of whom end up being unceremoniously murdered. This makes us uneasy about Chaplin’s ultimate fate, as again we’re not sure where the film is going.
I should note that while the movie is certainly cynical about the immorality of Cold War-era spycraft, it’s pleasingly not too cynical. Blake’s American team at one point uses torture to get what they want, but clearly is discomforted to do so, especially since the subject is a putative ally. The scene where this happens is nicely shaded in several respects. On the other hand, Craig at one point kills two presumably enemy agents. He assumes they’re Russians. “Are you sure?” he’s later asked. Craig looks uneasy, and we realize they may have in fact been American agents or even fellow Brits assigned by Loomis.
Screenwriter James Mitchell was a savvy choice. He had written dozens of scripts for the British TV series Callan, featuring the very downbeat adventures of the titular spy played by Edward Woodward. As The Prisoner is considered by many to be an unofficial follow-up to Danger Man (aka Secret Agent Man), Woodward’s later American series The Equalizer is also taken by many to be a winking sequel to Callan.
Director Peter Collinson remains most famous for the 1969 heist flick The Italian Job, starring Michael Caine. Caine, of course, played his own bureaucratic, blue collar spy Harry Palmer in a series of three films. Collinson nicely performs his chores here, drawing fine performances from his veteran cast and keeping things moving during the film’s nearly two hour run time.
Hell, the movie actually has a comic relief character (nicely cutting at least some of the tension) who isn’t odious. If the picture has one real flaw, I’d say it was the score. This is overly bombastic, as if composed for a more standard Bond knock-off. In a film that nicely tries to balance action and reality, the music often pushes things too far in the first direction. It never comes close to ruining the film, but I did occasionally find it distractingly annoying.
Overall, I’d give this a pretty decent thumbs up for people who like spy flicks. And sometimes it nice to just watch something you’ve never even heard of and see what you get.
){kind=link}