I WILL NOW PROCEDE TO PLAY WITH YOUR MIND... "THE IPCRESS FILE"

I know, we’re all on the quest for that one truly original story these days. There is much eye-rolling about all kind of cinematic cliché. But then again, some clichés, sometimes are not all bad. And you don’t get much more archetypal than a 60s spy movie starring Michael Caine.  But then again, as I often say, clichés are clichés for a reason. They wouldn’t have made so many of these movies if there wasn’t something about them that attracted the public – right?

Michael Caine stars as the hero of the show, Harry Palmer. He is a counter-espionage agent and he has been handed a particularly sensitive case. Some of the UKs most prolific and important scientists have started leaving their positions in drones. Not only that, one of the most important physicists, whose discoveries could give the UK the edge in the Cold War, no less, has now been kidnapped. Now, Palmer has a history of being insolent, doing things his own way and having far too much of an eye on the ladies – trouble is, he also happens to be one of the best agents in the service. Will his unorthodox methods carry him through and save the day?
Ok here's me being all technical and sh*t. Let's check out some moving pictures!

  I know it’s not a particularly novel concept to create antiheroes or to give the hero some negative characteristics (that, especially in more modern works the hero seems to redeem him-herself of without fail). But well, in the first place I was surprised they would make Palmer an anti-hero in the first place, it being the ‘60s and the “Russian Threat” being a very real thing in those days. I genuinely thought all the goodies would be “dashing”. I definitely didn’t expect them (Palmer I mean) to be, at times downright annoying. I mean the man must have been an absolute pain to work with. That said, we are entering the murky world of double agents (I won’t give you any further clues because it’s literally impossible to do without giving some plot point or other away). So, on a level it makes sense that our hero would not look quite the way we would expect him to look. Even if you are a seasoned spy film fan, I can pretty much guarantee even you will get briefly confused about who’s good, who’s bad and who’s “actually” working for who at some point in the proceedings.

And the other point is, of course that making Caine’s character a tad on the annoying side (not an actual jerk you understand, just, you know, a nigglesome bit annoying) is a lot more realistic than having him, for lack of a better word “all dashing”. He’s a top agent, used to manipulating people, outsmarting very dangerous baddies, getting it right and you know, saves the known world on a regular basis. I don’t know about you but I’m pretty sure I’d be a tad big-headed if that was MY definition of a regular day!  Needless to say Michael Caine absolutely nails it in his performance – I know he’s old-school but so am I, and I really enjoy his performance every single time ;)

Of course, coming from our modern perspective the “special effects” and the various “science things” border on the comical but I would really strongly advise you kind of suspend disbelief and just get stuck into the movie because, well, you didn’t REALLY get this far in the film because you expected fantastic HD explosions or something, did you?  Besides, it would be truly foolish of you to let this spoil a perfectly good film for you - I’ve personally never quite understood the point of view which states that “mind-blowing” special effects is almost the whole point of a film, it’s a completely different but equally erroneous school of style over substance… But I digress…

The again, of course, this is the 21^st century, everything is extremely visual and parts of the audience (not all, but definitely parts) want to be almost literally spoon-fed storylines without making a particular effort to “unravel” a darn thing. And I’m not even talking about unravelling some Tarkovsky film or the philosophical musings of Terrance Malik. Consider Bond films. It is only recently, under the “tutelage” of Sam Mendes that Bond is “slightly too old” a bit insecure about his abilities and even genuinely confused about the loyalties of the ones around him. But before that for the most part (say, since the mid ‘60s where this films hails from) Bond was perfect, for my taste; he’s slightly simplistic, won every battle – and never really provides one with any kind of doubt as to whether he would ACTUALLY make it or not . Bond films were all in all a rather brilliant collection of whatever the visual effects technology of the day could offer – especially in areas such as shoot-outs, high-speed chases, explosions etc.  – and not much else. That’s probably why I’ve never REALLY been a fan of Bond – I mean I have said a million times before, I’m all for escapist entertainment, but what is the REAL point if you know exactly what is going to happen in the end? You can get only so much pleasure from HOW you get there (in my universe) but basically, the moment I start, I know he’s going to beat the baddie, get the girl and save the world and my interest in watching is down to roughly a third of what it was (not very high in the first place). The one recent exception was Skyfall, where I had a moment’s hesitation what with all the build-up on Bond being so unsure of himself and all…

Ok, so, The Ipcress File. Definitely one for your head, not your “sense of explosion”. It may have been a combination of both at the time (this kind of film inevitably was – is). Now, with the “role” of the visual significantly diminished by our raised standards, do you know what… The part for the head STILL appeals. If you actually enjoy using your head when watching films, that is. And if you don’t, you know what, it’s a pretty darn good place to start…