MODESTY BLAISE and SABRE-TOOTH by Peter O'Donnell (Fawcett Crest 1965, 1966)

This double-shot is my first dose of Modesty Blaise. For some reason, I've always had the impression that MB was some light pop-cultural confection only marginally more serious than the "spoofs" it inspired. I say, "for some reason," but the reasons are pretty clear to me. First, the comic strip beginnings; second, the way the movie has been characterized in the unanimously scathing reviews I've read; third, the reputation for camp and spoofiness that has settled over Groovy Age popular spy entertainment in general; and finally the fact that even the MB novels were to some degree packaged as such. Although the McGinnis cover of Sabre-Tooth accurately depicts a scene from the novel, without O'Donnell's grim context and serious rationale, it looks like some broad comedy gag (you can almost hear the exaggerated burlesque-show music).

I should have known better when the so-called spoofs (like Lady from L.U.S.T. and Cherry Delight) turned out to be starker and darker and better in general than their covers promise. But then I almost fell out of my seat when John Grace said on the Eurotrash Paradise forum, "From what I remember [of the Modesty Blaise paperbacks], the best hand-to-hand combat scenes ever written." Considering John's extensive reading in action/adventure/spy/crime pulp and pbo's, when he says something like that, I listen--hey, he's the one who turned me on to the Parker novels! When Holger (who's reviewed another MB-derived series here, The Baroness), seconded the recommendation, I figured it was time to take the plunge and check out some Modesty Blaise.

Well, there's nothing light or zany or confectionary about these first two novels. In fact, they take some aggressively ruthless, gritty turns in places. O'Donnell does a pretty convincing job of showing how Modesty and other characters manage their emotions through any number of harrowing, horrible situations.

It so happens that the hand-to-hand combat scenes are pretty damn good, and the reason for that goes to the heart of O'Donnell's whole approach to the character. Plausibility was a defining concern for him right from the beginning, as he emphasizes in this interview:

In 1962, I had been writing for 20 plus years in all sorts of publications. Womens magazines, childrens papers and also doing the strip cartoons like Garth in the Daily Mirror, so I knew all about the big heros, and I thought it was about time someone came up with a female who could do all the things the males had been doing. But, for me she had to be plausible, so I had to give her the kind of background that would make her plausible. I don't think you could take a girl from behind a ...I don't know...a shop counter for example and turn her into a MB, it had to be born in the blood and the bone.

He goes on to describe a refugee child he encountered in his military service who seemed like the sort who could grow up into the kind of heroine he had in mind, and explains how he fleshed out that inspiration for MB's backstory.

He also spends a significant amount of time describing her training sessions to establish the mental and physical preparation underlying her spectacular fighting skills. This attention to detail gives him a thorough and precise sense of her physicality and demeanor that definitely comes through when he really shows her in action. Beyond that, O'Donnell just seems to have an excellent visual and spatial imagination, and an admirable inventiveness in creating unusually menacing foes. The central showdowns in both of these novels are something to look forward to, and O'Donnell delivers on them in a big way.

O'Donnell also has some very precise ideas about Modesty's relationships to other characters, like her sidekick Willie Garvin, or Sir Gerald Tarrant, a British intelligence officer who coordinates missions with her through a web of etiquette rooted in respect for her independence and things that must be understood because he can't officially say them. All of this is fascinating to watch play out.

Anyway, those are a few of my thoughts and impressions. Quite a bit has been written about MB on the internets already; rather than rehash it, here are links:

• Peter O'Donnell's MB website
• Comixology article (pts. one, two, and three)
• Toonopedia
• MB Book Covers
• MB fan page
• Complete MB Dossier
• Observer review
• Wikipedia entry

Bottom line--I really enjoyed these, highly recommend them, intend to get the rest, and thank John and Holger for bringing me around to giving them a look.

Expletives Inserted--by me!

This was fun, but not entirely satisfying. There are actually a number of these Bale/O'Reilly mashups out there now, but I like mine best:

DARLING (1965)

Julie Christie stars in this jaundice-eyed cautionary tale of the London jet-set. Here's a little highlight reel I threw together:



Honestly, this isn't as groovy or Swinging Londony as I'd hoped, and I only found it mildly entertaining. I'd have trouble recommending it even to those like myself with an interest in the period.

POINT BLANK and GET CARTER

These two movies make a fascinating study in contrasts. In one sense, they couldn't be more similar--they're both about ruthless, solitary men wreaking deadly and unrelenting havoc on the criminal organizations that have wronged them. In another sense, they couldn't be more different--Point Blank takes a slick, bright, colorful, fragmented, ambiguous art-house approach; whereas Get Carter is aggressively grim, gray, dreary, and straightforward.

Both movies are must-see masterpieces, but everyone knows that already, and I see no point in rehashing the much-deserved praise you can find all over the internets. I enjoyed them enough to watch them each three times in a row, but I do have bones to pick, and at the risk of obscuring my appreciation, I think it would be more interesting for the sake of discussion to focus on those more negative points.

Point Blank is guilty of a HUUUUGE pet peeve of mine, in its dalliance with "ambiguity." The ambiguity in question is between a literal reading of everything that follows the shooting of Walker at Alcatraz, and some non-literal interpretation, such as that Walker then inhabits some existentialist hell, or that it's all in his head a la "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge." Even worse, the "ambiguity" is laid on so thick that the literal interpretation becomes almost unsupportable.

This device is a darling of critics and pseudo-sophisticates, but it's the shabbiest cliche of all, and I have only scorn for creators who resort to it. In general, it's a failure of nerve, a tic of self-consciousness, an apology for something the creator lacks the guts to present without apology. Most often, the ambiguity gives the creator an out for anything that might invite sniffly highbrow criticism or ridicule if presented sincerely and straightforwardly. Monsters, for example, are "tacky," so in The Descent, they're subverted by ambiguity suggesting a psychological interpretation--thus vitiating the central horror and appeal of the movie. I don't find that the least bit smart or sophisticated. I find it weak and contemptible. In Point Blank, I'm actually inclined to take a more forgiving view, because there it functions more as an excuse to take such an experimental approach with such an established genre as film noir. But the stylization, color, fragmentation, etc. need no excuse and would come across all the more powerfully without it. Oh well! Just to wrap this point up on a more positive note, Point Blank is one of the grooviest-looking movies I've ever seen, and if this ambiguity is the price to pay for that, I guess I can live with it.

My chief complaint with Get Carter is the preposterously coincidental way Carter learns the secret he can't quite seem to beat out of anyone. That projector just happens to be set up with the one film that suddenly makes all the pieces fall into place?!? Again, oh well!

Now, let's hash out this question of who's scarier--Walker or Carter? Walker, apparently, is the favorite by far, and considering how incorrect that is, I can only think of a couple reasons why people would believe it. First, there's Lee Marvin in the role, with his "scowl that could overturn dump trucks." Second, I think a lot of people may be conflating the Parker of the novels with the Walker in Point Blank. But Walker isn't Parker. He arguably owes as much to Camus's Stranger as he does to Stark's Hunter. Kimberly Lindbergs has a classic post at Cinebeats that highlights just how much wounded vulnerability underlies, defines, and drives the character of Walker.

Here are a few arguments for why Carter is scarier:

1. Walker is a victim from the get-go, having been cuckolded by his wife and "friend," then shot by the latter and left for dead by both in a dingy cell on Alcatraz while they got away with his share of the loot. Carter, on the other hand, goes home to investigate the death of his brother, in open defiance of the wishes of his mob bosses in London.
2. Contrast Walker's sullen passivity when he finally "confronts" his wife, and his entirely passive role in her death (he wakes up to discover she's overdosed on sleeping pills) with Carter's frightful violence toward Glenda when he learns of her role in everything--he half-drowns her in the bath, stuffs her in the trunk of his car, then sardonically watches as the thugs he's just routed try to get back at him by shoving his car off a pier.
3. Walker gets a bruising in the jazz club that nobody comes close to inflicting on Carter.
4. Walker only actually kills one person--Reese--and has a strictly indirect role in every other death in the film. Carter shoots one of the thugs from London, knifes a fairly peripheral character to death for the hell of it, and kills Eric at the end by using a Scotch bottle in his mouth as a spike and the butt of a shotgun as a sledgehammer.
5. When Walker throws Reese off a building, he lands in the street in front of a car that stops in time. When Carter throws someone off a building, the guy crashes onto a car, killing the driver and injuring two children. This is illustrative of how much more violence, death, and destruction Carter brings in his wake and is willing to unleash.
6. Walker rocks back on his heels and becomes hesitant and doubtful when dumpy little Brewster stands up to him. By contrast, Carter squeezes local mob boss Kinnear to deliver Eric to him, then pulls the trigger on him anyway, by dumping in his pond a hooker he injected with an overdose of heroin (another savage act of vengeance), then calling the cops for a massive raid on his drug-and-sex party.
7. Walker fades into the shadows at the end with a brooding frown--and without his 93,000 dollars. Carter, having solved the mystery and slaughtered everyone he wanted to, breaks into laughter worthy of Heath Ledger's Joker (just before another hitman guns him down, to be sure).

Who's honoring me now?

Thanks Darius!!!

Expletives Inserted

I love profanity-laden tirades, and here's a mashup of two for the ages. Not safe for work, and not safe for your keyboard if there's anything in your mouth.

You guys are nuts!!!

I can't believe the near-unanimous choice of Walker over Carter as the scarier of the two. Well, you're wrong, as I intend to show. For now, let's just say there's a reason I chose the pictures I did for that post--Walker needs to shove a gun in some guy's face and snarl at him to exude the same level of menace Carter does just by taking a swig of Scotch.

Anyway, I've heard both commentaries--both well worth a listen--but now I want to give these movies one more viewing before I get down into a nitty-gritty close comparison/contrast. I think we can at least agree they both merit multiple viewings. In fact, I invite you to break out your own copies and watch along with me--the better to rebut my arguments, right?

Thanks for your patience!

Who's honoring me now?

Thanks, Phil!!!

Walker vs. Carter

I had my wings and beer last night, but not being much of a football fan, decided to run a double-feature of Point Blank and Get Carter--my first viewing in both cases. Holy Hell!!! I want to listen to the commentaries before making my full report, but in the meantime, I'll leave you with this question: If these scary guys were coming for you, who would scare you more?