Original title: Furia à Bahia pour OSS 117
Everyone’s favourite secret Cajun agent, Hubert Bonisseur de La Bath
(Frederick Stafford) aka OSS 117 finds his R&R in the Alps rudely
interrupted by another mission. Apparently, the number of terrorist attacks on
Important People™ has risen considerably in the last couple of months.
Responsible for all the – mostly suicidal – attacks are perfectly common people
without any radical political backgrounds or histories of violence. 117’s higher
ups have found out that the killers have been mind-controlled with the help of
some sort of drug, and have traced that drug’s production to Brazil, and of send
our hero there.
In Brazil, OSS is first to contact his local colleague, gather information
and go villain hunting according to whatever this information may suggest.
Unfortunately, said colleague turns out to have been nearly killed in the sort
of “accident” that can happen when somebody blows your car up with a grenade,
and the villains of the piece are rather keen on scratching the “nearly” from
this sentence. While they are at it, they’re also trying to murder 117, which
turns out to be rather more difficult than they seem to have expected.
Our hero for his part clearly follows the standard eurospy movie agent
tactics of punching guys and flirting with women, knowing full well that this
will eventually lead him where he wants to go, as the genre conventions
prescribe.
In this third movie in the 60s version of the adventures of OSS 117, and also
the third directed by André Hunebelle, Frederick Stafford replaces Kerwin
Matthews in the title role, and I rather liked him in this one. Sure, I doubt,
as with nearly all eurospy heroes, that his flirtatious moments would charm
anyone (call me the eternal optimist), but he’s really rather convincing at
portraying the more ruthless man of action side of the character, while looking
good enough in a suit to still work in the kind of society spies move in this
sort of film.
Mission for a Killer, like most of the OSS 117 series, belongs to
the relatively classy arm of Eurospy movies that can’t keep up with the budget
of a James Bond outing but clearly aren’t made out of cardboard and spit. There
are actual production values, like partial location shoots in Brazil, and a
script that has problems but is generally coherent and sane inside of the rules
and regulations of the non-realist spy film. Hunebelle, despite not being one of
the revered French masters, was a pretty great genre director, when it came to
swashbucklers and action-based spy movies at least, staging all sorts of
inventive action scenes between rough punch-outs and somewhat ambitious
semi-mass fights. He is particularly great at using the locations as actual
physical spaces, demonstrating an eye for verticality that is often curiously
lacking in directors (or not so curiously when a film simply can’t afford to use
it).
Plot-wise, this is pretty much bread and butter Eurospy business, with the
usual reversals and betrayals, the obligatory capture of the hero, and so on and
so forth, but it’s all well-paced and carefully enough constructed if you are
willing to buy into the basics of how espionage works in Eurospy films (and if
you don’t, you’re probably not exactly the audience for this write-up or the
film), and makes for a fine time when combined with Hunebelle’s skills and a
glass of wine or two.
Politically, there is of course something a bit dubious about a film that has
its hero fighting off revolutionaries against the Brazilian government,
including a bunch of paratroopers landing to rousing music, just the year after
a coup d’état in the real country that replaced a democratically voted-in
government with what would become a twenty year military dictatorship. However,
the novel this is based on was written in 1955, and I don’t really think the
filmmakers were trying to do propaganda work here, and more being a bit careless
with the real world their film has very little to do with anyway. In this
context, the portrayal of the revolutionaries is actually rather fitting, and
pretty damn funny, for the film seems to go out of its way to not give
them an actual political stance while still using the popular version of
revolutionary iconography with them. So there’s not a single actual political
statement made by any of these guys. Instead, we get vague speeches about The
Revolution that completely leave out for what and against what they are fighting
in what I can only see as a truly awkward attempt by the filmmakers to have
their cake and eat it, too.
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment