REVIEW: "ffolkes" (1980) STARRING ...
Cinema Retro
By
Hank Reineke
There are times I wish my failing memory could serve me
better, and here’s one example. I have a
vague memory of staying up one night – circa 1980, I guess - to catch Roger
Moore on one of those late night talk-shows. I was a huge James Bond fan and, as such, always desperate to mine any
news, no matter how trivial, on any upcoming oo7 adventure. This was, of course, in the pre-internet era
when insider information was relatively scarce outside of a morsel or two
shared in fanzine or with a subscription to Variety. (As an aside, today I often wish there was less information available when a film
is still in still production). In any
event, don’t recall if Moore shared any information that night on the next
scheduled Bond opus For Your Eyes Only
(1981). I do clearly recall him
discussing Andrew V. McLaglen’s ffolkes
(better known in the United Kingdom, where the film was originally released, as
North Sea Hijack).
In this new suspense-thriller Moore shared he would
co-star with actors James Mason and Anthony Perkins. That night Moore attempted a small joke,
first noting – factually - that the film was based on a Jack Davies novel
titled Esther, Ruth and Jennifer. He explained that Universal had – perhaps understandably
- balked on putting the film out under that title. This original title was, to be fair, a film publicist’s
nightmare. The former Saint reasoned
(and I’m paraphrasing here), “Could anyone imagine the promotional posters and newspaper
advertisements: “Roger Moore, James
Mason and Anthony Perkins in Esther, Ruth
and Jennifer?†Well, Moore’s joke
got a laugh that night, anyway. Decades
later Moore would recall in his memoir that Universal actually balked as they
thought the original Davies title sounded “too biblical.†Moore, never one to waste a punchline, would
recall in his memoir, “I’ve yet to come across a Jennifer in the Bible.â€
Whether you prefer the title ffolkes or North Sea Hijack,
the story was, as discussed, based on the Davies’ novel Esther, Ruth and Jennifer (W.H. Allen, 1979, UK). Davies was actually somewhat new to novel
writing, though his earlier novel involving terrorism, Paper Tiger (W.H. Allen, 1974, UK) was subsequently turned into a
film in 1975 film starring David Niven and Toshiro Mifune. Davies seems to have turned to the craft of
writing novels in the latter years of his life, though he had been steadily
employed as a writer during most of his 80 years. He had churned out dozens upon dozens of
screenplays from the mid-1930s through the very end of the 1960s and even a bit
beyond that. As a child I was already
familiar with two of the slapstick comedies he co-penned, though I certainly
wasn’t aware of his contributions at the time. But we of a certain age will certainly recall with fondness Those Magnificent Men in their Flying
Machines (1965) (for which Davies and co-writer Ken Annakin would receive Academy
Award nominations) and Those Daring Young
Men in their Jaunty Jalopies (1969).
Brought onto the project to direct the ffolkes project was Andrew V. McLaglen
who too boasted an impressive resume of directorial duties (having already steered
a dizzying amount of television westerns and contributing to such touchstone
dramas as Perry Mason). He had grown up immersed in the ways of Hollywood’s
film industry. His father, Victor
McLaglen, was a celebrated feature film actor, having long been a favorite casting
choice for the great John Ford. Indeed, McLaglen,
the elder, would go on to win the “Best Actor in a Leading Role†Oscar for Ford’s
1935 film The Informer. McLaglen, the son, would learn nearly every
aspect of the trade from an early age, starting out as an actor but finding
himself more comfortable on the other side of the camera - often working as a
director’s assistant or principal director. Though he had been especially
involved in television work in the 1950s through 1965, he decided to try his
hand at feature filmmaking. He did so
for a decade or more with mostly modest to mixed success.
He returned to television work in the mid-1970s until
1977 when he signed on to direct a number of internationally financed features which
would include the three films for which he is probably best remembered, at
least among devotees of action films: The Wild Geese (1978), ffolkes (1980) and The Sea Wolves (1980). This
trio of old-school filmmaking would, not coincidentally, feature a number of aging
Hollywood stars. These were the actors
who were no longer the hottest of commodities at the box office but were still
well-respected and loved by generations of filmgoers: Richard Burton, Richard
Harris, Stewart Granger, James Mason, Anthony Perkins, and Gregory Peck to name
a few. The connecting thread to all
three of these films was, of course, Roger Moore whose big-screen career had
re-blossomed since the 1972 announcement of his being cast as the new James
Bond.
Moore’s Rufus Excalibur ffolkes was the antithesis to the
womanizing character he was usually tasked to play. An ex-Navy man, the often pompous – and
bearded - ffolkes resided in a small castle just off the coast of Scotland,
(Ireland, in reality). It was there he would
exhaustively train a small hand-chosen band of elite commandos – dubbed “ffolkes
fusiliers†– in the art of counter-terrorism. The hard scotch whiskey-drinking ffolkes professed a distinct chauvinistic
distaste for woman (there’s an offhanded reference such animosity was the
result of a failed marriage). He only
expressed warmth, kindness and tenderness to his pet cats to whom he was doting
and devoted. He also puzzled several colleagues
– as it’s so out of character – when he would, on occasion, pull out a
needlework canvas that he allowed he’d been working on for some “seventeen
years.†When questioned about his
unusual hobby, he coldly responded in his usual misanthropic manner, “It helps
me to think… providing people don’t talk to me.â€
His services are reluctantly activated when the British
government are informed that a band of terrorists, disguised as members of the
international press, have taken control of the Esther, a Norwegian supply ship charged with ferrying parts to two
deep-sea ports-of-call: the drilling rig
Ruth, and the production platform Jennifer, the latter platform of which
sits in the North Sea and produces 300,000 barrels of oil for the UK per
year. When the Esther reaches its destinations, the terrorists subsequently send
in a stealth scuba team to plant limpet mines on the bases of both Ruth and Jennifer. The group’s unhinged
leader, Lou Kramer, played with convincing, unpredictable mania by Anthony
Perkins, is demanding the government pay him – within twenty-four hours - a
ransom of 25 million GBP in five different currencies to not go through with the detonation. The terrorist has assessed that such destruction would bring the economy
to the brink of ruin, cause an environmental catastrophe, and in doing so take
the lives of some seven hundred men working on the platforms.
During a tense meeting at 10 Downing Street with the
Prime Minister, the government asks the assistance of Lloyd’s of London, the
primary insurer of the oil production platforms. They suggest ffolkes as their best shot at
saving the platforms and workers, since the cabinet of ministers have already decided
not to use their own Royal Marine Commandos or SAS in the mission. They would have second thoughts. Upon meeting the eccentric ffolkes, no one in
the British delegation, such as Admiral Brindsen (James Mason) nor Tipping
(Jeremy Clyde) of the Privy Council, nor any of the staff working on the
threatened oil platform, seem to too fond of the boorish, Scotch-drinking counter-terrorism
expert. A few, in fact, seem to not even
think of ffolkes as completely sane – but they nonetheless agree to follow his
timed-to-the-second offensive strategies willingly, as he exudes and arrogant self-confidence,
assuring them his counter-moves are the only way forward.
I’m not going to lie. In the interest of full disclosure, I have been a great admirer of this
film since first catching it upon its U.S. release in the spring of 1980. It’s one of my favorite Roger Moore films as
well as one of my favorite suspense-action thrillers. Sadly and unjustly, the film didn’t perform
terribly well in the U.S. market, reportedly taking in only 2.9 million in
domestic receipts. In comparison, the
biggest box-office flop of 1980, Michael Cimino’s oft-ridiculed Heaven’s Gate, netted some 3.5
million. The reviews in U.S. newspapers
for ffolkes were mixed, but the
better percentage were dismissive if not almost completely negative. Which, to this very day, I find frustratingly
unexplainable.
The film didn’t receive all bad notices. The Philadelphia
Daily News trumpeted ffolkes as
“the most glamourous action movie in years.†It was a notice so glowing that it
was immediately cribbed by Universal’s promotions department… where it would
appear top-lined in the newsprint advertisements for the film. The Washington
Post was also impressed with ffolkes,
describing the high seas adventure as “an admirably crisp, incisive
counter-terrorism thriller,†while championing the film as “the most proficient
and entertaining movie of its kind since Richard Lester’s terrorist thriller Juggernaut. But most reviews were less enthusiastic,
sometimes painfully so. One review
dismissed the film as, at best, a “mildly diverting adventure,†another as “an adventure-suspense
film of no particular distinction.†Still another unfairly raked McLaglen over the coals, suggesting his
work as director was “to be charitable, routine. The production, compared to the Bond films,
is strictly bargain-basement.â€
The latter missive is demonstrative of many critical
assessments, each disparaging review missing the point that ffolkes was not a James Bond film. Moore’s popular-culture appeal was likely at its zenith in 1980, the
actor having just scored two huge box-office triumphs with the budget-busting
blockbusters The Spy Who Loved Me
(1977, budget 13.5 million USD) and Moonraker
(1979, budget 30 million USD). ffolkes was undoubtedly a more modestly
budgeted effort, but a terrific entertainment nonetheless. The film might have appeared “bargain
basement†to some as while it was a spy-commando thriller of a sort, it
featured a scenario rooted in the possible; not in the more familiar martini
swilling, womanizing “Super-Spy†tradition of the improbable. It could be argued that McLaglen’s film, in
its own measured and modest style, was more of a taut suspense thriller than
any of the more recent and splashy Bonds. The recent Bond films were great and a lot of fun, but they now relied
almost entirely on set pieces, comic-book super-villains, exciting chase
sequences and humor to offset some of their admittedly over-the-top storylines.
I can understand the confusion of both the critics and
the film’s potential audience on some level. I clearly recall being in a multiplex cinema at age nineteen, excitedly studying
the U.S. one sheet for ffolkes in the
theater’s “Coming Attractions†showcase. I was a card-carrying member of the James Bond 007 Fan Club of
Bronxville, New York, and was already looking forward to this film’s release – armed,
of course, with the privileged fanboy knowledge that this was not a new Bond film. But as other patrons passed by the poster on
their way either in and out of the cinema, I heard several comment, with words
to the effect, asking “Whoa, another
James Bond film already?
One couldn’t blame them. Universal’s poster art was very
Bond like in its presentation, the deep-sea oil platforms with explosions and a
swirling helicopter having conjured images of the more dramatic Diamonds are Forever U.S. one sheet of
1971. And there was Moore, front and
center, rising from the mayhem with four swimsuit-clad beauties hanging from him
as he cradles what appears to be a martini glass. If one could ignore the beard, this was not
Rufus Excalibur ffolkes on display, but rather an ersatz James Bond. Universal was hoping, no doubt, to profit off
Moore’s recent popularity with such a campaign, but the poster was more than a
bit misleading and the promotion misguided. While such ballyhoo might brought in some extra patrons to fill theater
seats on opening night, it consequentially set up an unrealistic expectation of
what many in the audience had just paid to see. A Roger Moore who expresses an antipathy to the opposite sex? No car chases? A hero who acts more as a cerebral chess
master and a tactician who wishes to psychologically disarm and upend the bad
guys systematically than just kick-their-ass in the usual swashbuckling action
hero tradition? Blasphemy!
It must be said that when Moore does slip into
action-hero mode, getting himself onto the hijacked vessel via a stealth scuba dive
before taking on the terrorists with some serious fisticuffs and a harpoon-gun,
he’s a bad ass. The fanboys who forever forward would lament
that Moore’s Bond seemed incapable of displaying the toughness and ruthlessness
exemplified by Sean Connery, likely sank in their cushioned theater seats when
the actor showed a side here that he rarely shared as stiff-haired, globe-trotting
playboy heroes Simon Templar or James Bond. Moore’s ffolkes is a cold, exacting and calculating commando who projects
a steely, no-nonsense demeanor; he’s the sort of unpredictable dangerous character
who might be moved to unsparing violence if called upon. Though I’ve been a long-time defender of
Moore’s James Bond – I personally don’t believe the franchise would have
survived the 1970s and 1980s without his arch take (one that obviously resonated
with filmgoers of that period despite the fanboy critics) - I too wished that
the actor might have brought some of this element of seriousness and danger to
Ian Fleming’s durable creation.
In McLaglen’s estimation, there was no similarity at all between
Jack Davies’ ffolkes and Fleming’s Bond. “I was especially pleased with the character of ffolkes,†the director
would tell a reporter from the Associated Press, as the character was “totally
different from James Bond – bearded, stuffy, [and] woman-hating.†The director would also shower praise on
Roger Moore, describing him as a “helluva [sic] performer.†He also thought Moore,
with whom he would work together on three films, was unfairly looked over as an
actor of the highest caliber. “He is
such a good-looking guy that people are jealous of him and he doesn’t get the
credit he deserves.†It was, in fact, a
mutual admiration. Moore would later
write that McLaglen, was a ‘director for whom I have a tremendous respect […],
we did two more films together… I wish it had been more.†Well, me too.
This Kino Lorber Studio Classics impressive Blu-ray of ffolkes features a 1920x1080p 1.85:1
transfer and DTS audio with removable English subtitles and an insert with
reversible artwork. The set features
eight chapter selections, as well as the film’s original theatrical
trailer. Also included are trailers for
four additional Roger Moore films available from Kino’s library of titles (The Naked Face, The Man Who Haunted Himself, Street
People and Gold), as well as the
trailers for the espionage thrillers When
Eight Bells Toll and Richard Lester’s Juggernaut. There’s also an audio commentary by film
historians and filmmakers Howard S. Berger, Steve Mitchell and Nathaniel
Thompson.
CLICK HERE TO ORDER FROM AMAZON
|
|