Jurassic Park. USA 1993

Bob Peck, Samuel Jackson and a concerned Richard Attenborough

By this stage of his career Attenborough worked mainly as a film-maker with occasional screen appearances; some as a guest star, some more substantial. His character, John Hammond, rather falls between the two. The film itself is part of a genre series and a media franchise. On its release it became the highest grossing film to that date and in its various manifestations it is still one of the all-time box office successes. The film is adapted from a novel by a very successful U.S. writer Michael Crichton. He already had successful screenplay for films like Coma (1978) and Westworld. (1973) The bidding war for the screen rights for this novel started before it was even published. Finally Steven Spielberg, an equally successful film-maker, obtained the rights.

The basic premise of the film is a new Wildlife Park Attraction being prepared for opening. The park uses sophisticated cloning techniques to producer actual animals which have been extinct for millennia. The setting is a fictional island off the east coast of Latin America. John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) is the entrepreneur though he relies on funding from other capitalists and employing a team of geneticists. He invites a palaeontologist to join a tour of the park; Alan Grant (Sam Neill) together with a palaeobotanist Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern). There is also a lawyer in charge of safety certification, Gennaro (Martin Ferrero), accompanied by chaotician Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum). The latter scientist provides a counter-view to that embodied in the park. During the tour they are joined by Hammond’s two grandchildren, also visiting the island.

The film opens with a series of brief sequences that set up the narrative. An accident involving one of the cloned prehistoric beasts  prompts the need for safety certification. An archaeozoological dig introduces the palaeontologists. And a meeting between two disreputable characters in Mexico, one the computer expert from the park Dennis Nedry (Wayne Knight) sets up the fix that will disrupt things.

The site of the wildlife park is in a hidden valley on the remote island; a standard generic setting for such disasters. Initially the tourists are really impressed as they see actual live dinosaurs. Hammond takes them through the tourist centre guides that explain [for the audience] how the whole parks and its cloning work., |Ian Malcom continually raises critical points about the park and the way it is run..

A tropical storm causes the majority of the staff to leave by boat. This leaves Hammond, the visitors, a warden Robert Muldoon (Bob Peck), Ray Arnold (Samuel Jackson) and Nedry alone on the island. Sure enough disaster strikes: security breaks down: and the wild prehistoric animals go on the rampage. There are not that many species on show and critics later complained that what is included does not all together stack up. But there are exciting and violent scenes as the main characters strive to avoid injury and death. Arnold, Muldoon, and Nedry all die.. The rest survive. The survivors, which include Hammond, leave on a helicopter passing a flight of cormorants; a reference to an earlier comment by the Malcom.

What happens to the remaining animals on the island, now capable of reproduction, is left open as is the opportunity for endless sequels or even prequels. ‘Bond’ has achieved two dozen: Star Wars has passed a dozen: and Fast ‘n Furious is fast approaching that number.

The film was an immense success and continues with video versions and the addition of 3D as well as spin-offs on television. And there was a vast and successful marketing campaign.. The sequels have done less well. The box office ran into billions and broke numerous records. The majority of critics were equally impressed with all sorts of accolades for the film. Robert Ebert was less impressed, writing,

“The movie delivers all too well on its promise to show us dinosaurs. We see them early and often, and they are indeed a triumph of special effects artistry, but the movie is lacking other qualities that it needs even more, such as a sense of awe and wonderment, and strong human story values”.

I tend to agree. What made the film stand out were the recreations of moving animal images; computer generated imagery, still in its early days. At the time this was impressive, though equal effects have become common in other movies. However, the characters and actions that surround these are pretty conventional. The action at times is stereotypical. And it is reminiscent of tropes in earlier Crichton works, like Westworld or the earlier The Andromeda Strain (1971); both movies rely on supposedly foolproof systems turning out to be flawed.

Richard Attenborough’s John Hammond is an avuncular father figure with little sign of the presumably commercial instinct behind such an entertainment project. He spend most of the film in the tourist centre, not directly threatened by the rampaging beasts, but gradually losing his confidence and surety.  Sam Neill’s Alan Grant is a laid back hero who rises to the occasion, but whose character relies on names and terms rather than demonstrable archaeozoological skill. The same applies to Laura Dern’s Ellie Sattler, who is also a strong and capable woman. The voice of scientific reality belongs to Jeff Goldblum’s Ian Malcom, facing another of ‘history’s bad ideas’; in fact with little to do but contribute scathing one-liner. The leading players do not seem to have had demanding roles; certainly less so than the numerous craft people credited in the very long end credits. Attenborough’s performance occupies an amount of screen time but much less acting input. The children are best passed over in silence and are typical examples of Hollywood’s ‘cute juniors’. Martin Ferrero, Bob Peck and Samuel Jackson all suffer the fate of supporting stars; death and lower down the cast list. Wayne Knight has just the right physical and behavioural appearance for the incompetent villainy that causes the disaster.

The location filming was mainly in Hawaii but the film relies extensively on computerised inputs. The dialogue is in English with some Spanish, not translated in subtitles. The production values are impressive and the film looks great on a big screen. The music is by John Williams and sounds familiar. The soundtrack is as good as the visuals though the latter command most attention.

As a warning about the possible misapplication of science the film is really too generalised to generate serious concern. As parable of contemporary capitalism it is really insufficient. As usual with Hollywood it is villainy rather than the imperatives of profit that cause the downfall. And the idea of competition between capitalists is with on a poorly managed company that has to rely on crime rather than the forces of the market.

In Eastmancolor and 1.85:1, running time 127 minutes: also released in 70mm blow-up. The film enjoyed the new Digital Theatre Sound System.

The Human Factor, Britain 1979

Richard Attenborough, Nicol Williamson, Robert Morley and Derek Jacobi [deceased]

This was Attenborough’s last screen appearance for over a decade as he concentrated on working as a producer and director. Attenborough’s second film with Otto Preminger turned out a lot better than the first, [Rosebud].  This might be because it was a British production; though in fact it was produced by Preminger working with the Rank organisation. More likely the improved quality was down to the source material: Graham Greene’s novel from 1973: and the writer who adapted the novel, Tom Stoppard. This was early in Stoppard’s career as a screenwriter, but he went on to work on the very successful John le Carré adaption, The Russia House (1990). This and the Preminger film were both spy stories. However, Greene had wanted to produce a study which avoided the violence common in the genre, and one that focussed on characters in the activity. Greene, like le Carré, had known the world of British spying in the Philby era; Greene in fact knew Philby personally. As in le Carre’s fiction, the affect of this can be seen in both the novel and the film.

The main character is Maurice Castle (Nicol Williamson) who works in the African section of MI6. We learn that in an earlier period he was stationed at the British Embassy in South Africa; a spy posing as a writer. We also learn that his reason for leaving that State, [in the Apartheid era] was his relationship with a young Bantu woman, Sarah (Iman); now his wife and the mother of a young son, Sam (Gary Forbes). Castle’s colleague in the same office is the younger Arthur Davis (Derek Jacobi). He is less pernickety than Castle and is also restless in an office environment.

The new security chief is Colonel Daintry (Richard Attenborough). He is warned by a superior officer, Sir John Hargreaves (Richard Vernon), that they suspect someone is passing information to the Soviet Intelligence. The key officer in the plot is Doctor Percival (Robert Morley). Percival has some function at the Porton Down Biological Warfare Centre. He is also a ruthless figure in the organisation. Davis becomes the suspect and information passed to him, but which he gossiped to Castle, provides the evidence. Percival favours eliminating him to avoid a public scandal. He joins Davis in night-time entertainment as Davis drinks quite heavily. This enables Percival to use a secret poison which leaves little trace.

Castle feels guilty about Davis’ death; especially as he is actually the mole, [.i.e. an enemy agent in the intelligent network). He passes information because of his experience in South Africa. The police there identified his relationship with Sarah and tried to blackmail him. A friend, Matthew Connolly (Tony Vogel), also a member of the Communist Party, helped him and Sarah escape to Britain. Without any conviction or monetary interest Castle passes information to Soviet agents in Britain as a sort of thank you.

Matters come to a head when a senior officer in South African intelligence visits London. Cornelius Muller (Joop Doderer) is the same officer who interrogated Castle years earlier. Castle is forced to liaise with Muller, who reveals that Connolly died in police custody. Then, at a secret meeting attended by Castle, Muller reveals a plan to eradicate insurgents in South Africa. Castle, following Davis’ death, had ceased passing information to the Soviets. But he is so appalled by this that he passes the plan on to his Soviet contact.

Muller is now suspicious of Castle and passes this on to the Hargreaves. Daintry investigates Castle but he is able to flee with Soviet assistance before being arrested. He and Sarah pretend they are separating and she and Sam go to stay with Castle’s mother (Ann Todd). Castle reaches Moscow safely but discovers that the British State will prevent Sarah joining him by preventing her taking her son, Sam, with her. The film ends with a despairing Castle sitting in his small Moscow flat by a dangling telephone, on which he had just finished talking to Sarah.

The plot certainly avoids violence; the only casualty is Castle’s dog, Buller, a boxer, put down when Castle flees. The British MI6 is a familiar class orientated organisation. One sequence has Daintry visiting Hargreaves’ estate for a shooting weekend, which includes a secret conference with Hargreaves and Percival. But that very class bound state leads to a leadership that is markedly inefficient. The chiefs are aware of Castle’s problems and why he left South Africa, but seem incapable of putting two and two together. It is the visiting Muller who makes the connection. This is a service recognisable from the le Carré stories, or on a lighter note, the adaptation of another Greene novel, Our Man in Havana 1959). The espionage techniques are familiar from this type of spy story; thus the communication code used by Castle involves duplicate copies of a classic novel. And the bookseller is part of the network; there is a nice touch when he offers Castle a Trollope novel to take to read in Moscow. Percival’s rather nasty practices are a little out of the ordinary

At the centre of this web of intrigue is Castle. He is really administrative material rather than spy material. When he puts the dog down he makes a mess of this; fortunately off-screen. And he is led rather than leading,  both at work: at home: and with the Soviet agents. Nicol Williamson is apt for this type of role. He performs it with real conviction and is completely convincing. What is in effect a downward spiral achieves a tragic tone.

Sarah is played by Iman; a model making her first film appearance. Unfortunately it shows. There is not a real chemistry between her and Williamson, though they are supposed to be driven by real passion. And there is little change in her demeanour whether things appear alright or, later in the film, are clearly heading for catastrophe. The film uses an extended flashback to show how the couple met; their developing affair: the actions of the South African security: and their flight, first to Botswana and then to Britain. She  appears to have been included early on in the production; one possible performer for Castle was, it seems, turned down because he was shorter than her.

Richard Attleborough’s Daintry is well done. Though not explicit his role as security chief seems to follow from his military rank. At time he seems  a little out of his depth; and he is clearly shocked when Percival suggests eliminating Davis. And he is vulnerable as well: bought out when he takes Castle along as a shield from his ex-wife at a reception for his newly married daughter. Interestingly, he heads the cast list: still a major star. Morley as Percival and Jacobi as Davis are both excellent. Morley’s Percival is really a monster, but believably so. And Jacobi’s Davis is well represented as out of his depth; he is pining unsuccessfully for the office secretary. The supporting cast are effective, especially Doderer as Muller.

The production values are fine. Mike Malloy’s cinematography suggests an observational mode at times; in keeping with Preminger’s familiar style. The film combines sets and locations: and the flashback was shot in Kenya. The scripting of the characters and dialogue is fine. And there are some almost sardonic sequences that fits with Greene’s stance. One is the hosting of the shooting weekend. The other is an evening when Castle accompanies Davis and Percival to a night club. The entertainment includes a banal African-style dance; reminding viewers of how poorly contemporary culture embraced black Africans. This, and the final shot of the film, have been added to plot of the novel; otherwise it follows the book fairly closely. But the narrative itself often lacks drive. This reflects the ambience of the British secret service  then, but it also leaves the audience wondering what next, and possibly speculating to that effect.

In colour, 1.85:1, running time 115 minutes

 

Shatranj Ke Khilari / The Chess Players, India 1977

Tom Alter, Richard Attenborough, Amjad Khan and supporting cast

The film was written and directed by Satyajit Ray; it was in Hindi, Urdu and English with English sub-titles. Some additional dialogue in Urdu was written by Ray’s collaborators. It is adapted from a short story by Munshi Premchan, the pen-name of an established Indian writer in both Hindi and Urdu of social fiction. Apparently the film expands the plot and characters of the original story.  The production was staffed by Ray regulars. The cast included actors from Bengal, from the Mumbai film industry and international stars like Richard Attenborough.

Based on historical events the film is set in the city of Lucknow in 1856. This is only a year before the First War of Independence on the sub-continent [called the Indian Mutiny by the British]. Lucknow was the capital of the Oudh State (spelled Awadh in the sub-titles). The British used manipulation to overturn an existing treaty and make the King abdicate, ensuring annexation by the East India Company, [the British crown took over direct control in 1858]. Oudh was one of the sites of the War of Independence in the following year.

The film’s main conflict is between the ruler or Nawab [referred to as a king by the British], Wajid Ali Shah (Amjad Khan) and General Outram (Richard Attenborough), the British Resident in Lucknow, but under orders from the Governor-General Lord Dalhousie. The Nawab is a skilled practitioner of poetry, music and dance and his devotion to these cause him to neglect administration. This provides the pretext for annexation. Outram has little knowledge of Indian culture but he prefers to use upright methods rather than the underhand ones ordered by Dalhousie. An early scene shows Outram with Captain Weston (Tom Alter), Outram’s aide de camp, discussing the Nawab. Weston speaks Urdu and is familiar with the culture. Part of the scripted scene is on the Satyajit Ray web pages.

The Chess Players of the title are two Lucknow nobles and landlords; Saeed Jaffrey as Mir Roshan Ali (Saeed Jaffrey) and  Mirza Sajjad Ali (Sanjeev Kumar). The pair have become addicted to chess [with slightly different rules in India] and spend most of their time on playing; ignoring their responsibility as landlords and their domestic responsibilities. Their wives are neglected:  Khurshid (Shabana Azmi), Mirza’s wife tries to seduce his interest but when this fails she steals the chess pieces: Nafisa (Farida Jalal), Mir’s wife is also neglected, her response is to start an affair with her nephew.

The machinations of the British: the Nawab’s preoccupation with culture: and the actions around the chess games all work in parallel. Prime Minister (“Madar-ud-Daula” – Victor Banerjee) tries to organise resistance on behalf the king. Mir and Mirza move: first from Mirza’s house to Mir’s: and then out of the city, over a river to a small village which by now is uninhabited [following news of the approach of the British expedition), except for a young boy. He replaces the servants who cater for their needs at home.

The ironies of the situations are bought out in the narrative voice which opens the movie: voiced in the distinctive tones of Amitabh Bachchan. He comments directly on the manipulative British: the supine ruler: and the obsessive players blind to the historic events around them. The film is certainly a comment on the supine nature of the indigenous ruling classes in the Indian sub-continent in the C19th; illustrated by the British being able to suppress the War of Independence.

This film is sheer pleasure but also a moral tale of great import. Attenborough recalled that he responded to Ray’s invitation,

“if you sent me the telephone directory to act, I’d do it.”

It is arguably the finest film in which Attenborough played; perhaps the very different Brighton Rock rivals it. Attenborough is excellent as General Outram, bringing out his sense of fairness but also his willingness to manipulate. And his quizzical attitude to the Nawab and the culture is well established. Jaffrey and Kumar are an absolute delight. There is a constant underlying humour to their playing, their relations and their absorption. Amjad Kahn makes the Nawab a tragic figure, caught out be circumstances which he is unable, even unwilling, to control. And the supporting cast, only seen for short scenes are also very fine. It is the sort of film that one can watch innumerable times with real pleasure.

Both Satyajit Ray and his cinematographer Soumendu Roy won awards in India; and the film was nominated at the Berlin Film Festival. It was submitted to the Hollywood Academy in the Best Foreign Film Category, but did not pick up a nomination. The list of those which did is on the Wikipedia page; not that distinguished. However, in 2010 the film was preserved in the Academy Film Archive.

This film is the only feature length title by Ray in Hindi. His output is so fine it is difficult to place one title above many others. But it is splendid in colour and the subject matter makes it accessible and still relevant for audiences in Britain.

In Eastmancolor and standard widescreen, running time 129 minutes

Conduct Unbecoming, Britain 1975

Michael York and Richard Attenborough

This film was adapted from a stage play of the same name by Barry England. The film was produced by British Lion Films with Michael Delay as producer. He has written about this film and others in a memoir, ‘Blade runners, deer hunters and blowing the bloody doors off: my life in cult movies’. (2009). The play was adapted for the screen by Robert Enders, but Deeley claims that there were several earlier screenplays that did not work. The director was Michael Anderson, he had a long career as director both in Britain and in Hollywood. He had previously directed Attenborough in the less-than-memorable Hell is Sold Out.

The film is set in an Indian Army Encampment in the 1870s, 20^th Indian Light Calvary. The play was apparently all performed in a single interior set. The film uses a couple of interior rooms: an adjoining garden: a Calvary parade ground: and, in flashback, sequences in the local countryside and also in an officer’s bungalow.

The film opens with a parade to commemorate a dead hero of the regiment,, Captain Scarlett. He was awarded the posthumous Victoria Cross and also left a widow, the young and attractive Mrs. Marjorie Scarlett (Susannah York). This sequence is intercut with two young would-be officers on a train journeying to join the regiment. They are 2nd Lieutenant Arthur E. Drake (Michael York), and 2nd Lieutenant Edward Millington (James Faulkner). Drake seems a young and keen recruit; Millington is cynical and not that keen. Their arrival introduces us to some key officers and the culture of the regiment; the latter is built round a code of honour and strict and seemingly repressive rituals and behaviour.

At the ball following the daytime ritual, Millington flirts with Mrs. Scarlett. Then she appears at the ball, dishevelled, showing signs of assault and in a state of shock. Millington is accused of the assault. However, to avoid the unfavourable publicity a court martial would bring it is decided to hold a ‘subaltern’s court’, an unofficial trial. Capt. Stuart Harper (Stacy Keech), the adjutant, is President of the court. Lt. Richard Fothergill, (Michael Culver), the senior subaltern, is prosecutor. And Drake, much against his will, is Defence Counsel. Senior Officers, even those appearing to give evidence, are seemingly unaware of the proceedings. These take place at midnight. Key witnesses are the regimental Doctor (James Donald): Mrs. Scarlett: Major Lionel E. Roach (Richard Attenborough): and the regimental Colonel, Benjmain Strang (Trevor Howard).

At the start everyone assumes that Millington is guilty. But Drake starts to uncover discrepancies even though Captain Harper tries to stifle him. Outside the court Drake is assisted by Pradwa Singh (Rafiq Anwar), the key military servant and one who knew both Drake’s and Millington fathers. And he helps Drake interview Mrs. Scarlett’s servant who provides the torn dress which she was wearing at the time of the assault; also a Mrs. Bandanai (Persis Khambatta). Mrs. Bandanai was the victim of a parallel assault six months earlier. Drake realises that the two assaults are similar; and that both are rather like a game played by the officers, ‘sticking the pig’, chasing a stuffed pig and ‘sticking’ it with their swords. He also realises that the unknown assailant appears to be wearing the bloodstained tunic of the dead captain Scarlett, normally kept in a glass case.

Finally the truth is out, Millington is innocent. One officer knows the identity of the perpetrator, Major Maj. Alastair Wimbourne (Christopher Plummer), but refuses to reveal this.

Finally Drake is a silent witness to Wimbourne confronting Roach, the perpetrator, who then commits suicide. The psychological explanation is that Roach was so appalled when he saw the body of the dead Scarlett, [in a flashback, apparently castrated] that he began the assaults, dressing up as the dead Scarlett.

There are numerous ironies in the drama. The final one being that the cynical Millington, once found innocent is welcomed as a brother officer in the mess but Drake is shunned and he is planning to resign his commission. How all this affects Mrs. Scarlet is not known. Clearly repressed sexuality is at the heart of the drama. In the early court scenes the officers cannot bring themselves to describe the result of the assault on Mrs. Scarlett. Mrs. Bandania was in Wimborne’s bed when assaulted. And the sticking the pig’ is rife with Freudian symbols and motifs.

The opening credits start with Michael York and is followed by Richard Attenborough, something of a giveaway in how the  plot develops. In fact, there are several star names in the credits and not all of them have an immediate leading role in the narrative. This turns out to be Attenborough and Christopher Plummer; we finally find that both are associated in the assault, Plummer’s/Wimbourne as an accessory in effect. Equally revealing is the opening sequence behind the credits. It shows a band of mounted officers, with some Indian troopers, engaged in a chase, presumably to ‘stick a pig’. Roach/Attenborough is the lead, chasing with real excitement.

In terms of performances, Attenborough for most of the film is not a leading character and he appears one of the traditional officer types that he has played before. When finally confronted and exposed he plays the change very effectively; a man traumatised by events. The rest of the cast are also good. Plummer plays the knowing observer well: Keech performs as something of a martinet but also serious about regimental honour. And Michael York and James Faulkner play their very differing junior officers convincingly. York changes from the naive, eager subaltern to a man with a mission. Susannah York manages combine the flirtatious side of her character with the shocked demeanour when caught out. The Indian characters are never developed in the way that the English characters are, even Pradah Singh, who has several scenes.

The film remains bound by its theatrical origins. Deeley noted that the earlier drafts of a screenplay

“”failed to crack the adaptation” but there was “a very simple solution, which was to go back to the stage play and strip out as much extraneous dialogue as possible. Robert Enders delivered a perfect screenplay by these means.” (Wikipedia)

I think some of the removed dialogue may have filled out characters; Mrs. Scarlett, the Doctor and the Colonel all felt that more would add to their contribution.

The film also filled out the play by extending the original setting on stage to several rooms and the garden. The cinematography by Robert Huke makes good use of the several spaces. In addition, a second unit shot footage on the actual North West Frontier; it seems that Huke also shot this. As well as filling out the action there are some fine widescreen landscapes. However, the leading cast presumably did not go with the second unit; and some of the flashbacks clearly appear to use back projection. The editing is by John Glen, who also directed Bond movies. The pace of the action, which involves scenes with quite an amount of dialogue is kept up.

One oddity is that we do not see Roach’s actual suicide, there is just the sound of the shot. This is followed by a sepia photograph of an officer, identified in an accompanying title;

“L. F. Roach Major 20th Indian Light Cavalry Killed in action — Ratjaphur –1878”

This inclines the audience to think this is based on actual events, which it seems is not the case. I wondered if it was an attempt to parallel some stage craft at the end of the theatrical version?

In Technicolor and 1.85:1, running time 107 minutes

 

Brannigan, Britain / USA 1975

John Wayne and Richard Attenborough

Produced by United Artists in Britain this is a John Wayne vehicle. It is an original story, then scripted up by the authors and two additional writers. The director, Douglas Hickox, started as an assistant director in the 1950s and in the 1960s and 70s worked as a director for both cinema and television. His best effort is likely Theatre of Blood (1975), a macabre but entertaining play on Shakespearean performance and criticism. This film is clearly an action thriller. Wikipedia suggests:

“It was one of many Dirty Harry-type films released in the wake of that film’s success, featuring rogue cops who don’t “play by the rules.”.

Wayne had earlier turned down the opportunity to play Harry Callaghan.

The opening credits set the tone over shots of a revolver and ammunition. The narrative opens with Lieutenant ‘Jim’ Brannigan in New York; demonstrating his maverick ways in arresting a counterfeiter. His real target is the criminal Ben Larkin (John Vernon). So, he is packed off to Britain where Larkin has been apprehended by the Metropolitan police. In London we also meet Larkin’s lawyer Mel Fields (Mel Ferrer): his London counterpart Commander Sir Charles Swann (Richard Attenborough): and a young Detective Sergeant Jennifer Thatcher (Judy Geeson). Brannigan’s NYPD methods are out of the norm in London; as is his Colt 38. Swann at first seems a  rather stuffy senior police officer, but he soon reveals that is something of a maverick as well, but with typical British restraint. Their efforts to find Larkin become complicated as a US hit-man is working on a contract to eliminate Brannigan in London. When the kidnapping is resolved, mainly by Brannigan, it transpires that Larkin and Fields were involved in a scam to pocket one million dollars. As they are taken away Brannigan has to thwart and then eliminate the hit-man. We assume that he is able to take both Larkin and Fields back to the USA for justice.

The film is constructed around Wayne, who is his usual on-screen persona. Attenborough is fine as Swann though it is mostly an undemanding role.  He recalled in an interview his amusement at a scene in a pub

“in which ostensibly I laid ‘Duke’ Wayne low with a right-hander to his chin.”

Judy Geeson, for most of the movie, looks overcome by working with a major Hollywood star. Ferrer is good; Vernon pretty much so. The supporting British cast work well but do not have a lot to do.

The film is constructed around scenes of action and violent, often not really motivated by characters or plot. The fight scene in a pub is an example. And the trailing round London by the hit-man in an E-type Jaguar also contains some odd scenes. The kidnappers work better; there are two sequences where their methods are ingenious. The film also seems constructed around London views; since it mainly uses locations there are a number of sites, like Buckingham Palace,  Piccadilly, Trafalgar Square and Tower Bridge, that seem to be there for US audiences to enjoy. One location is The Garrick Club; a ‘gentlemen’ club dating from 1831, which to date has resisted women membership. The location was only allowed because Attenborough is a member. This is not usually in the list of Attenborough’s activities; one assume he joined to ‘network’, as the contemporary phrase goes: something he seems to be very effective at.

The production values are fine, as one would expect. The film often features odd camera angles which seem rather unnecessary. The editing goes at a pace; and the music is suitably action toned as well. Like Dirty Harry (1971), it has not aged that well.

Deluxe colour and Panavision, 2.39:1: the slight change in the ratio at this time from 2.35:1 was actually a reduction in the height rather than the width in projection and masking, [see the Widescreen Musuem.com]: running time 111 minutes.

And Then There Were None, Italy / West Germany / France / Spain / Britain / Iran 1974

Adolpho Celi, Gert Frobe, Stephane Audran [facing away], Richard Attenborough, Herbert Lom, Charles Aznavour and Elke Sommer with Oliver Reed on the stairs.

“in February 1974 I left for Isfahan in Iran to appear in yet another version of Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians, this time under the title of Then There Were None. The film itself was pretty dreadful; nevertheless the salary that I received allowed me to pay off my debts, reduce my overdraft to more reasonable proportions and keep going for a further few months.” (In Search of Gandhi, page 135).

This was a multi-country European production, reflected in the multi-national cast; the original title was  Ein Unbekannter rechnet ab. It is an adaptation of a novel by Agatha Christie [not credited]; originally published under the title ‘Ten Little Niggers’ and later understandably changed to ‘Ten Little Indians’. There are  a number of other adaptations, and theatrical and television versions. This one was produced by Harry Alan Towers, an independent radio and film producer and writer. He had already produced a version in 1965 and this later version usually the same screenplay. The 1965 version has a predominately British cast and was initially screened in Austria. This version was shot in various location in Iran, including the ruins at Persepolis. The film was directed by Peter Collinson, whose output included the very successful The Italian Job. (1969).

The film uses a traditional children’s poem, ‘Ten Little Indians’, a model of this is one of the props; guests are killed off one by one. visualised on the model. So, ten guests arrive in a remote Iranian hotel. They discover that none of them seem to have met their mysterious host. A recording then accuses each person of a crime. Following this, the guests die one by one; and all in some distinctive manner. The penny drops; the killer is one of the guests. Only at the end is the killer revealed: it is Judge Cannon (Richard Attenborough): he accepts that he knowingly sentenced an innocent man to death. He now confronts the surviving guest Vera Clyde (Elke Sommer), suggesting that she is  alone and beyond rescue, and so will commit suicide. He has helpfully provided a noose and, suffering from an incurable decease, takes poison. At the last minute another survivor appears, Hugh Lombard/ Charles Morley (Oliver Reed) and he and Vera leave together.

Attenborough is effective as the murderous judge, disguising his malevolent intent to the final reveal. The persona is a familiar one from earlier films; a traditional establishment figure. The two survivors, Reed and Sommer, are pretty obviously survivors from early on; this is as much to do with the way their characters are written as to their performances. The rest of the cast do not get sa great opportunity to display their talents, though Charles Aznavour as Michael Raven gets to sing a French song. Herbert Lom does suggest something likely suspect, and any guesses as to the identity of the killer rests on Attenborough and Lom. The voice on the recording is by Orson Welles, one pleasure in the movie.

The film looks nice and there is some excellent use of the locations, both the hotel and the ruins. The editing manages to tie together several different locations which include separate places for the hotel interiors and exteriors. There are some noticeable errors, including a sequence at night in the hotel but apparently daylight in the exterior.

Black and white, 1.66:1, 98 minutes

Rosebud, USA 1975

Richard Attenborough and Peter O’Toole

There is a two year gap between Young Winston and Attenborough’s next assignment as actor or film-maker. In 1973 he became involved in trying to set up Capital Radio. a project that started but then failed. He wrote,

“Capital was a great stimulus to my morale. It did not, however, assist my bank balance. Not to put too fine a point on it, I was flat broke. My last salary had come from Young Winston some two years beforehand.” (In search of Gandhi, page 155).

He goes on to mention Then There Were None and later Brannigan. But he omits any mention of this title which preceded both..

The film opens as we follow a man landing from a ship in what turns out to be Corsica. He journeys to a remote spot with a gate and fence bearing the sign ‘Defense’, meaning forbidden. Entering, he arrives at a gated compound with several stone buildings. The occupants are Arab and the interior suggests that they are criminals or terrorists. One has a nasty looking hand spike for use in stabbings. The cellars of the building store weapons including AK47s. And an inner room has been adapted with beds, a toilet and shower.

At a European port five young women, daughters of wealthy European and U.S. families board a luxury yacht. There is Isabelle Huppert as Helene Nikolaos, Brigitte Ariel as Sabine Fargeau, Lalla Ward as Margaret Carter, Kim Cattrall as Joyce Donnovan, Debra Berger as Gertrud Freyer. Sabine, is visited by a young man, Patrice; he leaves the boat in the early evening. At night the Arabs board the yacht with the help of a bribed crewman, who is instantly killed. The rest of the crew are also killed and the five young women taken hostage. The women are successfully transferred to the buildings and cellar in Corsica, Meanwhile, the police find the abandoned yacht and an investigation and search in commenced.

We cut to a British newsroom where a journalist, Larry Martin (Peter O’Toole) is contacted by some security official. He is taken to be seen by the father of one of the kidnapped girls. We gradually learn that Martin works in some fashion for the C.I.A, but also works with the German security services and with Israeli security services. It becomes clear than rather being a secret agent in the style of James Bond that he acts as an investigator and negotiator.

The film proceeds in parallel, cutting between the activities of Martin and the hostages and their captors. As the film progresses more time is spent on Martin and his progress. The captors release a captor, Margaret [British] with a pre-recorded video which defines their demands, read on-camera by Margaret. and this includes the video to be shown on a number of prime time television. stations. The video itself is watched by Martin with two of the parents of the young women: Charles Andre Fargeau (Claude Dauphin), a wealthy French business who is Jewish, though he has kept that secret: he is the grandfather of Sabine: and U.S. Senator Donnovan (John Lindsay), father of Joyce. If the video is broadcast the captors will release a further prisoner with more demands. In the USA the President leaves that issue up to the television networks who do screen the video.

The second prisoner released is Helene Nikolaos. In order to thwart tracking the captors use a pretend flight to make the released prisoner believe she has been flown from somewhere; where as she is released on Corsica. The new video requires Fargeau to read a statement on-camera, revealing that he is Jewish and also that he played a role in the Jordanian massacre of the Black September Palestinian group. The video advises that in order to publicise the Palestinian plight they will release two more prisoners at four-monthly intervals and finally, after a year, Sabine.

Martin is busy contacting intelligence agencies including that of Israel, not identified by name. With German help he identifies a key leader of the Black September group; Edward Sloat (Richard Attleborough), as the name implies he is actually British. Martin also arranges for Patrice, arrested on Corsica, to be released. Disguised as Patrice Martin contacts and then meets Sloat at a secret Black September hideout. Sloat tells him that

“I want the elimination of Israel”

Martin manages to bring samples from the rock of the hide-out. He takes this and his memories of his travel to the hideout to Israeli intelligence. They, using sophisticated computer software, [‘better than that of the USA’] identify the site of the hideout in Lebanon. They agree they will take no action whilst Martin attempts to rescue the hostages.

He returns to Corsica, bizarrely with Helene in tow. He soon discovers the large estate in which he will find the hideout of the kidnappers. An Israeli hit squad meets him under cover: they sabotage the water supply: and knock out the captors and hostages with a sleeping gas. As they enter the only awake person is the assassin with the murderous spike and Martin disarms him. Once the hostages are released an Israeli hit squad attacks the Lebanese hideout, not actually shooting the Palestinians but capturing Sloat. Apparently they do this whilst the Palestinians pray towards Mecca without noticing the hijack. Confronted by Martin, the CIA and others, Sloat boasts that his real purpose is to attack both Israel and Black September; the latter, he maintains, are not genuine Muslims as they support the idol of communism. He also threatens that the remaining hostages will be killed. This tirade is recorded and played back to Sloat as well as the information that the hostages are already free.

In a final twist the film ends with a hijacker, holding a hand grenade, and announcing to the air plane crew that he will hold them and the passengers hostages against the release of the Palestinians/captors imprisoned by the French.

The politics of the film are reactionary and I will return to this. But the film itself develops into what is called in film parlance, ‘a turkey’. It starts out well with the introduction of the kidnapping group. This is followed by the young women coming together at the yacht. How they all came to be part of the party is not explained, and as the movie goes on more and more is unexplained. The release of the two captives and the videos is well done but after that what is happening at the Corsican hideout is not followed up. Martin’s intelligent connections are as implausible as Bond’s action talents. We do learn he helped out German Intelligence after the Munich Olympics massacre; a sneaky way of bringing in Black September but with no attempt to explain their politics.

Martin’s foray as Patrice is ridiculous. Sloat tells him to ‘remove his makeup’, something that should have been obvious to Martin. And the idea of a British leader of Black September really beggars belief.

The plot becomes even more implausible when Martin returns to Corsica with Helen; why he agrees? The raid on the hideout is a little too pat. Whilst the raid on the Lebanese cave is bizarre. I was trying to decide if the praying Palestinians did not notice the Israeli squad or were held in praying stance at gunpoint. And we are asked to believe that a man who rises to leadership in a terrorist organisation would allow himself to be trapped into recording an expose.

At least the final shot with the hijacker in a fresh plane has some feel of realism.

There are holes in the narrative, like the lack of coverage of the hostages in the latter stages. I wondered if for production reasons the later parts of the film were rushed, and possibly had scenes cut. The film does run to 126 minutes, which is longer than the norm. Perhaps the writers could not just fit all the novel’s plot into the movie?

Even worse are the politics of the film. This is another of those Hollywood tracts, disguised as narrative, supporting Zionism and pillorying the Palestinians. Preminger has form on this; his 1960 film version of the novel by Leon Uris, Exodus. The book provides a Zionist travesty of the partition of Palestine and the setting up of a Zionist State. The book is well characterised,

“The book was first criticised in 1960 by Aziz S. Sahwell of the Arab Information Center for historical inaccuracies and its depiction of Arabs. This criticism has been maintained by others. Edward Said suggested in 2001 that the novel still provides “the main narrative model that dominates American thinking” with respect to the foundation of Israel. British writer Robert Fisk wrote in 2014 that it was “a racist, fictional account of the birth of Israel in which Arabs are rarely mentioned without the adjectives ‘dirty’ and ‘stinking’ [and] was one of the best pieces of Socialist-Zionist propaganda that Israel could have sought”. Norman Finkelstein espoused a similar view as Robert Fisk, in his 2008 work Beyond Chutzpah. In addition, Rashid Khalidi has stated that the book has served “to confirm and deepen pre-existing prejudices” about Palestinians and Arabs in general.” [Wikipedia with citations for the references].

The film version simplifies the novel but does little to dilute the racism. There is a ‘good’ Arab character, i.e. he supports the Zionists. And the latter are played by major Hollywood stars, amplifying the impact of the film.

The depiction of Palestinians carries over into Rosebud. Their presentation follows the tropes of Hollywood movies celebrating the actions of U.S. security agencies. Whilst they do not indulge in the terrorism attributed to Arabs in other films they are presented as ruthless. What is worse about the film is that their supposed leader is Sloat; British and actually trying to destroy their group. This is an even more common trope, the idea that people taking subversive action are always motivated and steered by a subversive; thus not capable of organising their own resistance.

The massacre at the Munich Olympics is merely a sign for the audience. There is no attempt to explain or situate it. And this also applies to the presentation of Black September and, with opposite effect, the Zionist security agents.

The involvement of some people is odd. The main writer is actually Preminger’s son, which probably explains his contribution: given his limited scriptwriting experience this may explain some of the problems with the film. Peter O’Toole‘s career suggests he was not that adept or caring about his choice of projects; he was the star of the inexorable What’s New Pussycat?’

Attenborough’s involvement takes more explaining. He was taking acting roles in the period to raise income because of his commitment to the making of Gandhi. Even so, the film is a bizarre choice. At least in the earlier The Last Grenade his character was a reasonably well crafted role with him playing it well. The scene where he offers a tirade to be recorded as evidence shows none of the restraint that made his best roles memorable.

The |Observer review included the following,

“Richard Attenborough as a renegade British mercenary in charge of Arab terrorists is essential viewing. Beseeching Allah to let him know why he has been forsaken in the last reel, Attenborough is favoured with the reply of one of his captors, “Perhaps you embarrassed him.” Much the same could and should be said of the film as a whole.”

Then there is Isabelle Hubert as Helene? This film was before the roles that established her acting credentials, like The Lacemaker. Perhaps she thought it would open up a Hollywood career; clearly she was sadly mistaken if that was the case. Denys Neil Coop was director of Photography. His earlier films included This Sporting Life but also Bunny Lake Is Missing; perhaps he liked working with Preminger.

In De Luxe colour and with a ratio of 2.35:1, running time 126 minutes

10 Rillington Place, Britain 1971

Judy Geeson and Richard Attenborough

This film was produced by Martin Ransohoff’s Filmways Pictures in association with Columbia Pictures, both US companies. It was directed by Richard Fleischer, who also directed two other films about real-life murders, Compulsion 1959 and The Boston Strangler (1968), another serial killer movie. Most of the production personnel were British, including the screenwriter Clive Exton who adapted the book by British journalist Ludovic Kennedy. The murders at the titular address were infamous as was a connected miscarriage of justice. The film opens with an on-screen title,

“”This is a true story. Whenever possible, the dialogue has been based on official documents”

The film opens in 1944 with the murder of a young woman by John Reginald Christie (Richard Attenborough) at his flat in the titular address. The murder involves gassing the victim, then strangling her and involves [not shown] necrophilia. Christie is married to Ethel (Pat Heywood) who in the film is unaware of the murders commuted by her husband until late in the film.

The film moves forward to 1949 when a young couple, Timothy Evans (John Hurt), his wife Beryl (Judy Geeson) and their baby daughter Geraldine (Miss Riley) rent the top flat. Evans works as a lorry driver: he is illiterate and also prone to invent stories about himself: and he frequently rows with Beryl. Beryl discovers that she is pregnant with another child; neither she nor her husband want a second child. Christie offers to assist with an abortion; an illegal act. In fact, whilst Evans is at work Christie kills Beryl and assaults the body. When Evans returns Christie explains that the abortion went wrong and frightens Evans by telling him that he is an accessory. Evans leaves the house secretly and returns to his native Wales; telling relatives that Beryl is on holiday with the baby in Brighton. Christie now also strangles Geraldine and hides both bodies. As his stories start to fall apart Evans confesses to the police, but changes his story several times.

He is brought to trial for murder of both Beryl and Geraldine, though only the latter is included in the charge. We see the questioning of Christie, revealing that he has a criminal record as well as health issues including a bad back: and then of Evans: but Christie is the more convincing in court. Evans is sentenced to death and we briefly see the hanging at a London prison.

As his wife starts to suspect Christie he kills her and then later another woman he meets in a cafe. He hides their bodies in the house. He leaves to lead a life of wandering; new tenants find the bodies; eight in all. Christie is arrested. End titles expose his crimes and the later pardoning of Evans.

The film is dominated by Attleborough and Hurt and both give really fine performances. This is one of Attenborough’s finest, along with the fellow psychotic Pinky in Brighton Rock. However, his Christie is a different creation. Revealing little and coming across as a quiet reflective character. He talks almost in a whisper and rarely displays emotion. Attenborough’s thinning hair on top is here completely bald. And Hurt, who won particular praise, is convincing as the inadequate Evans. The other actors play round these two and contribute to the realist ambience.

The other force in the film is the house. This is shadowy, dingy and with primitive fittings common for the period. It ac ts as as a sort of labyrinth; a trope found in numerable serial killer films. The kitchens are only basic: the furniture is worn and threadbare: and the back yard is unprepossessing: it also hides two of the corpses. Note, a couple of times we see a neighbour’s collie pawing at the place where the bodies lie, in real-life it was Christie’s own dog.

The house, like the main characters, is almost from another world. And this was even the sense in the beginning of the 1970s. The drab and basic life and homes of ordinary working people changed notably in the years between the actual murders and the film. This is also true of police investigation and the conduct of trials; the death penalty had been abolished by this date, [in1969 apart from treason]. Still, the police came in for much criticism when the true course of events was revealed.

Attenborough wrote in his book on ‘Gandhi’;

“I felt that steeping myself in this particular character, however unpleasant, would be worthwhile if, as a result, people were persuaded that hanging was not only barbarous but could cause irretrievable miscarriages of justice.”

The cinematography by British cameraman Denys Coop is excellent and really contributes to the atmosphere in the house. Most of the film is shot there or in the street. Rillington Place was redeveloped fairly soon after the filming. Most of the interiors were actually shot in Number 7 or in a studio; we really only see exteriors of Number 10. And there are the briefer scenes in Wales; in the court room: the prison: and a couple of other locations. The music is by John Dankworth and is suitably atmospheric.

The film stands up as a sort of docu-drama though it works as a feature film. There was one minor puzzle. The house has a landlord and Christie was only a tenant but when he shows Evans the flat he act as if a landlord. It does typify the way that Christie was able to dominate other people whilst seemingly this inoffensive and helpful man. The film, as with the performances, stands out for the period. It originally had an X certificate and there is no doubt that the subject matter is disturbing, even with the reticence over the sexual angle.

In colour, 1.85:1, running time 111 minutes

A Severed Head, Britain 1971

Richard Attenborough and Lee Remick

The film was made by British based Winkast Film Productions which operated from the 1960s until the early 1980s. It is an adaptation of a novel by Iris Murdoch published in 1961; it was adapted as a play by Murdoch together with J. B.  B. Priestley. The novel is intended as a satire of adult middle class people involved in sexual and partly romantic shenanigans. The British middle class term is ambiguous, here the characters are affluent professional people, with expensive town houses and seemingly no noticeable deprivations. The novel was adapted for film by Frederic Raphael, born in the USA. Raphael worked as a writer in Britain in a number of different forms, including screenplays. He was popular and successful in this period; his most notable success on film was Darling (1965). The film was directed by Dick Clement. He worked as a writer, producer and director, most frequently in partnership with Ian La Frenais. Most of their work was for television; there are a few films in the 1970s.

The film opens with a set of unusual credits, screened over a rotating turn-table with accurately produced dolls of the leading characters. One of these is Martin Lynch-Gibbon (Ian Holm) and the film cuts from the Martin doll to the actual Martin. He runs, possibly owns, a wine merchant and we first see him tasting wine with either colleagues of customers. Wine is one of the central motifs in the film. We constantly see Martin carrying wine to friends and associates: people opening and drinking wine: with wine representative of the affluence of their life styles.

Martin is married to Antonia, (also Tony – Lee Remick). Antonia is receiving treatment from psychoanalyst Palmer Anderson (Richard Attenborough). We, and Martin, soon learn that Antonia and Palmer are having an affair. Indeed Antonia announces she will leave Martin and co-habit with Palmer. However, Martin himself is involved in an affair with Georgie Hands (Jennie Lindon). She teaches textile design at a London University College. Her flat, alongside the river, has a large, old-fashioned loom which dominates the space.

Palmer and Antonia condescend to Martin. They insist he move out of his and Antonia’s joint house. They find him a flat and employ an interior design professional to overlook the décor and furnishings. We meet Martin’s sister and brother when he visits them in the country. The brother, Alexander (Clive Revill) is a sculptor and meant to be something of a ‘free spirit’. And Palmer and Antonia are visited by Palmer’s sister, Honor Klein (Clare Bloom) a psychology academic at Oxford.

Matters complicate. Martin discovers that Alexander is having an affair with Georgy. He remarks bitterly that Alexander had always taken up his girlfriends after a parting. Martin starts to develop an obsession with Honor, though this is a spiky relationship. Then  he discovers her in bed with Palmer; who justifies the affair on the grounds that she is only his half-sister. Martin does not tell Antonia of this, but she soon turns up at their old house neurotic because Palmer has become cold and disturbing. This presumably is because his fear of being found out.

Pressures mount on Georgy  as well and she attempts suicide. The other four main characters visit her in hospital; the only time in the film that we see them all together in one room. Antonia and Martin resume living in their old house; though there are signs that Antonia has another infatuation. Alexander and Georgy marry. But she is being treated by Palmer The film ends, as it opened, with Martin wine tasting at his firm. However, this time Honor appears and they embrace.

Honor provides a line to Martin explaining the title;

“I am an object of terrible fascination to you, A Severed Head such as primitive tribes used putting a morsel of gold on its tongue to make it utter prophecies, as real people you and I do not exist for one and other.”

Not that helpful actually, but Murdoch’s books are full of academic references.

The film retains a sardonic tone which is recognisably her style. But it also has some whimsical sequences that are less so. Martin visits Palmer and Antonia at a health farm; Palmer is a hypochondriac. They sit in hoods drinking organic tea. At another point, when Martin has only just met Honor, she demonstrates her limited skills with a samurai sword. But the recurring motifs  is the wine and wine tasting. A bottle of red is spilt on a white carpet, both at Palmer’s house and at Martin’s original house. Wine tasting has much significance but little actual substance; think of the superior satire in Sideways (2004). It is an apt comment on the characters. They are though not all equally inconsequential. Palmer and Antonia both seem all on the surface; and in  a lesser role this applies to Alexander. Honor is deliberately mysterious, which disguises a likely lack of substance. Martin however has moments of genuine emotion. This comes across in a fantasy sequence, though not completely successful. It combines imaginings of the other characters with what appear to be flashbacks. It occurs in the, for now, uninhabited but still furnished joint house. It is here that Martin spills the bottle of wine; and it was he that spilt the other bottle in Palmer’s bedroom. But this more powerful scene of emotion does not seem to affect him for any length of time.

The one person with genuine and powerful emotion is Georgy. It comes across in later scenes with Martin well before her attempted suicide. She is, in one sense, a victim of the other leading characters. Interestingly she does not project an upper middle class persona, as do the rest.

Attenborough plays Palmer well. He could almost be Attenborough’s earlier Cox moved up into the world of Uncle Bertie. He is smoothly convincing and Martin and Antonia falling for it can be understood. This surface drops once, when his sexual secret might be discovered. Ian Holm is excellent at Martin. He manages changes from blandness to emotion and back again with aplomb. Jenny Linden is excellent as the only really emotional character in the film. Honor and Alexander are undeveloped, almost ciphers played with ease by Bloom and Revill. Lee Remick plays Antonia with skill but this character also is seriously underwritten. She alone does not have any moments of substance. The character almost seems a subject of misogyny.

The production values are fine, but despite the use of actual locations at times it does have the feel of a television movie. It was filmed in Eastmancolor and the by now standard 1.85.1 The music is intermittent; most often accompanying a movement for Martin in the plot. There are chords of Japanese style music to accompany the samurai sword.

It does not seem to have had wide distribution outside Britain. I can imagine that the particular British habits of the characters would have seemed strange rather than funny to foreign audiences.  It is in one sense of a sexual merry-go-round; a sort of British version of the far superior La Ronde, Max Ophuls fine 1950 drama.

Running time 127 minutes

 

The Last Grenade, Britain 1970

Honor Blackman and Richard Attenborough

This is adapted from a novel John Sherlock’s 1964 novel The Ordeal of Major Grigsby which was set during a war for independence in Malaya in the late 1940s. The screen[play has produced a story of ‘soldiers of fortune’ or mercenaries who are recruited to work in British occupied territories including Hong Kong and the wider area. The conflict is with China, called ‘red China’ in the film, to which the territories actually belong. The writers include Kenneth Ware and two adapters James Mitchell and John Sherlock. All three’s main experience in writing for television. This is also true of the director Gordon Flemying. The television work clearly influences the film which is not that cinematic. The film was produced overall by Dimitri de Grunwald, who also produced an earlier film featuring Richard Attenborough.

The film opens in the Congo; another colonised territory suffering from the after effects. A group of mercenaries led by Major [ex-] Harry Grigsby (Stanley Baker) suffer a surprise attack by a fellow gang of mercenaries led by Kip Thompson (Alex Cord). Grigsby survives and recovers back in Britain. Then he is recruited by the British government [clearly unofficially] to go after Kip Thompson who is now working in the jungles near Hong Kong and, it is claimed, working on behalf of the Red Guard; part of the revolutionary movement in China but routinely presented as a modern version of the ‘yellow peril’.

Grigsby recruits four of his regular and experiences mercenaries and they arrive in Hong Kong. His contact is Lieutenant David Coulson (Ray Brooks) but he is actually responsible to the British commander General Charles Whiteley (Richard Attenborough). The action partly takes place in Hong Kon, both in official establishments and  a run-down village where the mercenaries are based. But there are also forays into the jungle in pursuit of Thompson and his mercenaries. At first  Thompson manages to ambush Grigsby. Whilst off-duty Grigsby meets the wife of General Whiteley, Katherine (Honor Blackman). This leads to an affair including a weekend at a luxury hotel. However, Katherine is killed in an ambush by Thompson. Grigsby now goes pursuit of Thompson alone; his mercenary colleagues have gone home disillusioned. The finale of the film is pointed to in the title.

Stanley Baker and his colleagues, Rafer Johnson as Joe Jackson: Andrew Keir as Gordon Mackenzie; Julian Glover as Andy Royal: and  John Thaw as Terry Mitchell, are reasonably effective. Ray brooks and Honor Blackman are both good. Alex Cord is weird, which seems partly down to the script but partly to an over-acted character. Richard Attleborough is really effective, at first something of  a martinet and something of the qualities in the earlier Regimental Sergeant. Major Lauderdale, presumably a factor in the casting. Later, when tragedy strikes he brings a more empathetic tone to his character. All of the characters display attitudes typical of movies set in the British empire; the mercenaries treat indigenous people in a racialist manner. And there are not nay substantial portraits either of Africans or of Chinese; canon folder for the colonisers.

This is one of those films that Attenborough presumably worked on for the payment.

“As the sixties turned to the seventies, many of Attenborough’s acting assignments now look as if they were accepted as means to the end which was Gandhi.” (David Robinson in  the Dossier, page 39).

It really is a poor quality film. One critic complained about the limited amount of action in a film supposedly about war. There are a lot of scenes and dialogue away from the fighting and some of it could have been shed. The action sequences are relatively well done but remain implausible.

In Eastmancolor and in wide screen 2.35:1: running time 94 minutes: I felt that the film was likely originally written and directed for a longer version.