alanbnew

The TV series of Rising Damp had ended in 1978 and two years later it made it to the big screen as many great - and some not so great - TV sitcoms did. This is of a better standard than many of the other adaptations but that's more a reflection of the quality of the original show than its own merits. While the filmed version is a fair piece of entertainment it's a pale reflection of the original exceptional series and not a fitting finale as might have been hoped.

The biggest problem has been highlighted by most reviewers - the film largely reuses storylines and dialogue from the episodes. It's not quite right to say it's like three or even four episodes edited together but more a case of short sections from various ones being stitched together almost in a sketch-like way. As such there's no overall storyline as did at least occur in those film versions that largely or wholly used original material. There's nothing wrong with the material "borrowed" from the episodes but perhaps because it's so obviously reused it just falls flat. It just seems unadventurous and unimaginative, especially with those episodes still fresh in the memory in 1980 and since then reseen by most fans many, many times. Apparently writer Eric Chappell and Leonard Rossiter both favoured this approach which clearly cut down on writing and performance time as well as giving them confidence given the previous success of the material. By contrast director Joe McGrath would have preferred more use of new input and guest star Denholm Elliott also wanted to improvise on set. Most of all though the great majority of viewers both then and now would want to see more that was new and it's surprising that wasn't appreciated more.

Repetition in itself is not an issue in comedy. Fans can watch the same original episode on TV many times and still find it very funny but the circumstances then are very different. When we watch a repeat we know what we are getting and there can be delight in knowing what's coming next and seeing it in its original form. However that's quite different to watching what is supposed to a new episode or film version expecting something new and then finding it to be a repeat. Also the same dialogue and scenario in a TV sitcom is played quite differently than within a film. TV sitcoms then were played in front of a studio audience and the actors would respond to that audience and leave pauses to allow certain lines to generate laughs. By contrast in a film there is no studio audience or laughter so the lines are delivered quite differently. This isn't to say that comedy needs studio audiences and laughter. Modern sitcoms are commonly played with no studio audience and can still work brilliantly well, as do comic films which don't have sitcom roots. The problem really comes with taking lines and set-ups that were designed for a studio audience and which viewers remember enjoying in that context and then putting them on film. The same could happen in reverse in reusing sections from a comic film and trying to do them within a TV sitcom in front of an audience. The two are equally valid but very different and shouldn't be mixed. It's a little depressing to hear lines that worked so brilliantly in an episode and which barely raise a smile translated to the big screen. Maybe this would all be less of an issue for any viewers watching the film who had never seen the TV version but I'm not sure how many would fall into that category as these film adaptations traded on familiarity with the original show.

Of course there is some new material within the film but it has to be said this doesn't lift proceedings very much. Some of these are fantasy sequences which were achievable within a film budget compared to TV but to be frank these don't work well as they are out of keeping with the original style of the show. There are a few interesting variations. The character of Seymour was taken from the original series and is still an upmarket conman but here - played by Denholm Elliott - he is played quite convincingly as something of a ladies man as well as someone who is able to spot the cons of others. The ending also offers a variation on a similar scenario in the series which works okay and is probably better than just rehashing earlier events. However on the whole this new material is well below the standard of what had featured on TV and maybe gives the impression of being rushed off just to link together the older and seemingly proven sections. It's possible that if there had been a requirement for a mostly or wholly new script the film would never have been made because either Eric Chappell or Leonard Rossiter or both wouldn't have wanted to do it and they were clearly the key players. It's also possible an original script would have been worse than what did end up on screen. Maybe that wouldn't have been the case if that approach had been tried a few years later or even a few years earlier while the TV show was still in production and at its peak.

If a film version had been made a few years earlier it may well have included Richard Beckinsale as the character of Alan and that leads on to the other most commonly cited complaint - the absence of Richard who tragically had died early in 1979. It's easy to overlook that he didn't appear in the final series of the show in 1978 as he was working on other projects but his death casts a long shadow over this film version unlike in Series 4. The producers understandably didn't want to recast the part of Alan and maybe felt they needed a regular third tenant in the film rather than the array of guest tenants / characters who had featured in Series 4. Maybe the mistake they made was to cast essentially an "Alan-replacement" in the film and this made comparisons inevitable and invidious. While the new character of "John" (played by Christopher Strauli) is different in small ways from Alan - most notably in being an art rather than medical student - he has a largely identical personality and most tellingly just inherits so many of Alan's lines from the series. Chris Strauli gets criticism for his performance which is rather unfair as he was in such a difficult position. It would have been hard enough to play essentially the same character even if Richard Beckinsale had been alive but simply unavailable but his loss meant that whoever played this role was bound to suffer by comparison. It maybe also didn't help that apparently Leonard Rossiter gave Chris a difficult time, perhaps because he found it hard to accept a new actor playing such a similar part. Any actor who replaces (or is deemed to be replacing) a much-loved actor and central member of cast faces this problem. Perhaps it would have been better to just write a very different character to play a new regular tenant. This had actually been done - admittedly briefly - in Series 2 when Frances De La Tour was absent from its final episodes and Gay Rose came in to play the very different character of Brenda who was certainly no clone of Miss Jones. Casting an actor who was also radically different from Richard Beckinsale may also have helped to deter the comparisons. However the reliance on so much material from the TV show probably made this impossible.

The absence of Richard also meant one or two other minor changes. In this film version Philip inherits Alan's role as a medical student but this only receives a passing mention unlike the attention to Alan's medical aspirations on the small screen. Perhaps Philip could have been the art student but maybe it was felt that fitted better with the guise of John, giving him reason to try to paint his girlfriend undressed and playing to his sexual inexperience which wouldn't have worked with the very worldly and confident Philip who didn't need that justification to encounter women.

A typical feature of the big screen versions is seeing the sitcom home transformed into literally a new setting. This always looked a bit odd and so it does here. Rigsby's house seems to have relocated to London whereas his original base was never pinned down but seemed to be in a university town, probably in the same Yorkshire region as its producers. As others have noted his house also seems rather brighter and better-appointed than its "predecessor". The small TV sets and the grottiness of the rooms certainly added to the comedy in the TV version. There is some location filming for the big screen but the lack of any action outside the studio was no drawback on TV. The location work was inevitable on film but was never likely to enhance the end result.

Overall there will always be interest when a TV show makes in on to film and fans of the TV show are bound to be curious about the results. Rising Damp was such a supreme sitcom it was always going to face exceptionally high expectations and unfortunately that proved to be too much. Fortunately though the original episodes can be readily seen on archive TV channels or streaming (sometimes cut) and wholly intact on DVD. The best advice for any viewer would be to watch several episodes and see the show at its best and that will never disappoint.

This was the first episode of UFO's second production block, one renowned for some remarkably bold stories with the aliens trying radical new approaches to defeat SHADO. On the surface this seems to be a more conventional outing but on closer inspection it's also bold and distinctive in its own way.

A key aspect shaping this episode was the unique writing pair of Bob Bell and David Lane, the latter also directing affairs. Bob Bell was the show's art director while David Lane was much better known as a director. This fresh writing team helps send things in a different direction with an eye-catching look. Very early on this is signalled with freeze-frames during the opening credits. Much of the episode was shot at Stone Dean Farm, a location well-known to Bob Bell, and the bright sunshine also opens things up in a show which was often studio-bound.

Despite the bright sunshine and seemingly tranquil location this is one of the darkest and creepiest episodes of UFO, at least in its first half. This is probably the closest UFO came to a thriller with there being two sources of threat. Most obviously there is the alien who is on the loose and one presumes he sees the residents of the farm as "prey". However it seems he is not the only one with this eye on the Stone family. A hippy called Cully is squatting on the land and is clearly on bad terms with showjumper Russ who sees him as trouble. Russ may have good reason as Cully comes across as distinctly threatening, often brandishing a knife which is ostensibly for cutting firewood and other tasks but he gives the impression of being prepared to use it for more disturbing reasons. In particularly he seems to have his eye on Russ's sister Anne. He seems to be stalking out the farm but is he really a threat or just having some perverse "fun" in antagonising Russ and scaring his sister?

There is also a little social comment here. Russ's negativity towards Cully isn't unusual for the way many people regard travellers, squatters or the homeless and there is no doubt Cully's attitude helps fuel that negativity. At the same time maybe Cully's hostility is a response to that of Russ who isn't giving him a chance. The other two members of the Stone family - Anne and their father - are more prepared to speak up for him but one wonders in Anne's case whether she is trying to tease her brother. It does seem though that Cully may have an unhealthy interest in her and the scenes with him spying on her are very unsettling. Anne it seems is being set up - although she may not realise it - as "a woman in peril", so common in the thriller genre. Maybe though the greater threat to her and others will come from the elsewhere...

There are some very creepy scenes, particularly those set at night. The unusual use of the eerie UFO end theme when the alien and his UFO are the focus is very well done. Of course the alien is not just the hunter and SHADO are also hunting for him but the question is what will he or Cully do before they arrive?

There are certainly a couple of shocking scenes bordering on horror. One of these I have always felt to be extremely unpleasant and unnecessary - it's always coloured my memory of the episode altogether although I'm more willing in recent times to not let it obscure the virtues of the whole. It's struck me as odd that this was routinely shown in "family" slots around teatime and early evening when others were pushed into late-night viewing. Maybe this reflects the sensitivities of the time with those other episodes seen as more problematic due to matters such as drug references or a bedroom scene while violence was seen as less disturbing.

Thereafter there is a reversion to more conventional science fiction fare. There is a very dramatic action scene, especially effective for being set at night-time. The final section centres on a very tense event which I always feel is much longer than it actually is! It's well enough done but maybe drags a little. We also get to see from a fashion viewpoint the first appearance in production order at least of "the red dress"! However due to the vagaries of varying episode orders many viewers will have seen that dress in other episodes first and it is certainly more prominent in "The Psychobombs".

Overall this is an outing that I feel improves on further viewing. It sets up even more provocative stories to follow but it deserves commendation for its own unique qualities.

Another Italian compilation film based on episodes of UFO which was very popular in the nation. While more conventional in some respects it's also more unconventional (or outlandish if you prefer) in others.

Essentially this is based around only two episodes - "The Square Triangle" and "Kill Straker!" - but plenty of clips from other episodes are inserted at various points seemingly to heighten the "drama", increase the action quotient and try to live up to the first part of the "movie" title.

An edited version of "The Square Triangle" starts the film and takes up most of the first half-hour. However even in the lengthy pre-credits sequence footage from "A Question of Priorities" is also inserted to give the impression that there is an extra UFO and alien in the area. As the alien drags a body into his craft a similar image from an unusual angle is included from "The Cat With Ten Lives" and that leads into a bizarre credits and immediate post-credits sequence. Images are optically edited - resembling coloured negatives - creating some strange images as clips from "Flight Path" and "Timelash" are edited together to give the impression that Commander Straker is undergoing a peculiar medical examination and recalling the events to be depicted.

Matters then revert more prosaically to "The Square Triangle". The emphasis is very much on the alien who has landed in the forest and the storyline of the adulterous couple whom he stumbles upon is very much marginalised. For those who have seen the original episode this is strange as that relationship is very much the dominant element and wrapped-up with a memorable moral conundrum but for the sake of this movie with its emphasis on an alien attack it takes second place.

Just before the half-hour there is an abrupt shift to the events of "Kill Straker!". There is no natural linkage between the two episodes so maybe this was inevitable. The great majority of that episode is included here and obviously it links to the movie title. However the producers clearly felt they had to justify the "annihilate SHADO" element so various shots of SHADO bases under attack are included. This extends to the aliens attacking Moonbase at the same time as Foster and Straker are confronting each other in the Control Sphere. This is rather incongruous as Moonbase couldn't coordinate its defence with no-one managing events in Control. This obvious has no basis in the original episode and would have been best avoided given how strong that confrontation between the pair is - there was no need for extra drama. Editing is also used to reframe other events so the attack on Fairfield Tracker Station in "The Psychobombs" is inserted and made to look as if it were by UFO fire and not by a human under alien control. Attention to continuity is abandoned with so many attacks and counter-attacks displayed that it seems like SHADO has far more interceptors, missiles and other means of defence than it really does. Dialogue is even changed at points to justify the altered narrative on-screen. It's all certainly spectacular but any sort of reality is abandoned.

One of the other most distinctive aspects is that most of Barry Gray's original music is replaced or supplemented by other sounds, many it seems by John Barry and his music for James Bond. This isn't as jarring as it could have been given the quality of John Barry's music. This culminates in a curious end sequence. The actual end credits (including the visuals) for "Kill Straker!" conclude the film rather than the cast and crew for the whole "movie". The retention of the original end credit sequence (if not the lack of full credits) is certainly preferable to a new one but unfortunately the original, very unsettling end music is replaced by some rather non-descript piece.

A strange ending to a strange but still engaging film. The best UFO experience is always to watch original episodes but it's worth seeing this at least once just to see how a "movie" might be concocted out of them.