The Alphabet Murders

Agatha Christie's character Hercule Poirot has always been difficult for filmmakers to cast.  The caliber and type of actor playing the part has varied greatly over the years --- Peter Ustinov, Ian Holm, Albert Finney, Alfred Molina, and David Suchet have all worn the funny mustache --- but the general attitude toward the character has remained fairly static.  Hercule Poirot is a brilliant amateur detective that earns the respect of Scotland Yard, despite his overblown vanity regarding his appearance.  The Alphabet Murders decides to try something different.  What if this was a mystery with a bumbling detective?  And Poirot was played for laughs?  Wouldn't that appeal to everybody absolutely no one?

The Alphabet Murders is based on Agatha Christie's whodunnit, The ABC Murders, minus only the plot and most of the details.  The film opens with Tony Randall, as himself, addressing the camera and explaining that he will be playing the part of the great Hercule Poirot. 

Subtly, no doubt

If nothing else, I have to admit that was an unexpected choice.  Randall then transforms into Poirot and, after a few gags involving him breaking the fourth wall, the plot is afoot.  Almost.  It seems that Hercule Poirot is not held in high esteem by the British police, even as they find themselves in the middle of a murder spree.  Instead of consulting with Poirot, Soctland Yard sends Hastings (Robert Morley) to guide Poirot safely out of London and on a plane to his homeland of Belgium.  How well does that work?  Let me put it to you this way: when Hastings is onscreen, his movements are accompanied by a tuba on the soundtrack.

Bum-ba-dum, ba-dum, ba-dum-dum-dum...

The reason Poirot doesn't oblige the Brits is because he was approached by an Amazon a desperate woman (Anita Ekberg); Poirot begins the case out of idle curiosity, but it becomes something more when he accidentally meets her on the street and she claims to not know him.

It's not surprising that he would remember her, though.  Low-key outfit, lady.

Why would anyone ask for Poirot's help and then claim not to know who he is?  What does this mystery woman have to do with the murder of a clown?  Wait...what?  A clown?  Let me check my notes...well, I guess that's right.  Clown murder.  ***sigh***

"Is that really any more ridiculous than anything else here?"

How was the acting in The Alphabet Murders?  Universally overdone.  However, the script did call for broad physical comedy, so I can't fault the actors for playing to the script.  Having said that, Tony Randall was dreadful as Hercule Poirot.  Imagine an actor from the 60s doing an exaggerated impression of a gay Frenchman and you will have the general idea of Randall's performance. 

Don't give me that look.  You're the one mugging the camera for laughs.

Robert Morley played his bumbling supporting role adeptly, although he failed to provide any laughs.  Morley is just very believable when he plays characters who inevitably get locked inside closets.  If his character was suicidal after as a result of his own incompetence, I might say Morley did a fantastic job, but the character sadly is oblivious to failure and embarrassment.  Anita Ekberg was fairly blank as the mystery woman, and the plot gives a reason for that blankness, so...I guess she was adequate?  The rest of the cast is pretty unmemorable and inconsequential to the larger story, although I did recognize a young Julian Glover in a small role and Margaret Rutherford (who played Agatha Christie's other prize character, Miss Marple) had a cameo.

When I look at director Frank Tashlin's body of work, it's not surprising that he made a murder mystery into a farce.  This is a guy whose biggest movies involved Jerry Lewis, so of course he spends a lot of time on "jokes" that no one could enjoy. 

Get it?  The mirror shows the wrong person talking!

Still, The Alphabet Murders could have been a much better movie and a lot of the blame lies on Tashlin.  If his direction had actually led me to laugh, or even smirk, I would cut him some slack.  Instead, he just had two funny-looking men stumble across the screen for the better part of 90 minutes without anything to show for it.  The acting was insultingly broad, the editing was not crisp enough for the gags the script provided, and the mystery is just confusing instead of suspenseful.  I will give credit where it is due --- there are about fifteen minutes in the final act of the movie where this mystery gets interesting.  Not coincidentally, they are the fifteen minutes free of gags.

In all fairness, I should point out that The Alphabet Murders was given the comedic treatment after Margaret Rutherford starred in four semi-comedic movies based on other Agatha Christie works.  It appears that this movie went a bit too far, though. 

Tony Randall was never meant to be a sex symbol

It would be almost a decade before another film was made using the character of Hercule Poirot; after that, he was primarily relegated to public television made-for-TV movies.  I still can't wrap my head around how awful this movie is.  I've recently started to wonder if there have been any good Agatha Christie movies made, but this weak attempt left me depressed.  It's one thing to make a mystery devoid of sense and suspense.  It's another to do that and undercut everything with humor that makes Nancy look like a comic genius by comparison. 

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask)

If you've never seen Everything You've Ever Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask), it was loosely based on the book of the same name.  And, by "loosely," I mean that they are both about sex.  A Woody Allen written and directed movie about sex might not sound like the greatest idea now, but this was back when the man was actually funny, and not just clever.  This isn't a traditional film, though.  Instead of having a plot, it is a series of vignettes that are unrelated, except for sharing the common theme of sex.  There are no common characters and there isn't really any through line to connect them.  In other words, a comedian had an idea for a few sketches about sex and arbitrarily decided to package them together as a movie.  I don't have a problem with that.  Do you?

SEX

There are seven mini stories in this film, but not all of them are equally entertaining.  Part 1 (Do Aphrodisiacs Work?) is set in medieval times, where a court jester (Woody Allen) uses an aphrodisiac on the Queen (Lynn Redgrave) to seduce her.  Allen uses the rapid-fire joke approach here, which means that there are some good jokes, but a lot of bad ones; if you're a fan of "comedic" Hamlet references, though, this is your Holy Grail.  Part 2 (What is Sodomy?) is the tale of a doctor (Gene Wilder) that falls in love with a sheep.  Obviously, this is an incredibly stupid sketch, and the highlight of the movie for me.  This bit is Gene Wilder in all his early-70s glory, and features the best single take (not a double take) in film history.  Part 3 (Why Do Some Women Have Trouble Reaching Orgasm?) has Allen again, but this time he discovers that the only way for his far-too-attractive-for-him wife (and actual ex-spouse) to climax is to have sex in public.  This bit is filmed entirely in Italian, which actually helps make this funnier.  Part 4 (Are Transvestites Homosexuals?) has a man getting caught dressing up in women's clothing; I'm sure this is knee-slapping fun in England, but it made me yawn.  Part 5 (What Are Sex Perverts?) is a little better, focusing on a game show where Regis Philbin (who only looks to be about 75 years old at the time) and a few other celebrities try to guess someone's perversion.  It's not a great sketch, but I laughed when I saw part of a rabbi's fantasy included his wife eating pork.  Part 6 (Are the Findings of Doctors and Clinics Who Do Sexual Research and Experiments Accurate?) has Woody starring again, this time opposite John Carradine.  The bit has Carradine as a mad scientist interested in sex that releases a gigantic killer breast on an unsuspecting public.

If that sounds stupid to you, then I think Allen achieved what he was aiming for.  Part 7 (What Happens During Ejaculation?) is the most star-studded sketch of the film, with Tony Randall, a gum-chewing Burt Reynolds, and Allen again.  Randall and Reynolds work inside the brain of a man on a date, and try to control the rest of the body to make sure that this date ends in successful sex.  The sperm (including a nervous Allen) are, more or less, paratroopers waiting to invade a foreign territory and terrified at all the non-fallopian places they can end up.

So, yeah, this is a bunch of skits shoved into a movie format.  While not the first time a movie has struggled with the film format to show off some silly sketches (Casino Royale - 1967, anyone?), and it certainly wouldn't be the last time (Kentucky Fried Movie), Everything... is an interesting film in its own right.  Not all the sketches work well --- the cross-dressing sketch and the game show are notable examples --- but this movie best encapsulates Woody Allen's early phase: try to get as many laughs as possible, all the time.  However, the scenes that work best in the movie (the Italian film tribute and Gene Wilder's sheep loving) show off different aspects of Allen's talent.  The Italian sketch might maintain the three-jokes-a-minute pace of the rest of the film, but it has Allen playing against type as a cool, sexy man; it also shows his first tendency to imitate/emulate the works of great directors, like Fellini.  The sheep sketch has the slowest pace of the entire film, but the biggest laughs; it's hard to believe, but this is the most understated sketch in the whole movie, relying on timing and delivery more than dialogue or physical comedy for its laughs.  When you look at Allen's filmography, it might be initially surprising that there are only two movies separating this silliness from Annie Hall, but there are some signs of creative growth here, hidden amongst all the goofiness.

Understated.

Enough about the big picture, how does the movie stand up on its own?  Surprisingly well, actually.  I'm not going to lie and tell you that all parts of the film have aged well, or that Woody Allen is a genius that can do no wrong --- at least three of the seven sketches in this film are either unfunny or yawn-inducing.  The bits that work, though, work well.  There is plenty of slapstick physical comedy, there is some absurdist humor, and there are some moderately conceptual jokes.  In other words, there is something here for everyone, and at a pace so rapid fire that you barely have time to laugh at the jokes you like, much less groan at the ones you don't.  This certainly isn't a great film for acting or directing, but it's as silly as it intends to be, and funnier than it has any right to be.

...and that's for a movie that is 3/7 junk!  I kind of wish that Allen had just added these sketches as film shorts to show before his other movies, but whatever.  Pure dumb fun, and worth the price of admission just to see Gene Wilder and Woody Allen work together in their prime.