After reviewing 2004's My Name is Modesty and listening to two Modesty Blaise radio adventures, I decided to take a look at the 1966 film, in spite of its bad reputation.
The premise and core plot (including some of the main characters) are identical to one of the BBC radio adaptations I had listened to. Peter O'Donnell, the creator of the Modesty Blaise comic strip, wrote the screenplay for this film, but is was changed so much during the production that he is said to have complained that there was barely one line in the finished film that was his. He later wrote a novel based on his original script, and I assume that the BBC used that novel for one of their radio dramatisations.
So, no matter how big the differences between the film and the BBC Radio4 version may be in style and tone, the premise is the same:
The British government tries to help a friendly foreign government to transfer a huge fortune in diamonds from London to Lebanon. An unknown enemy is upsetting the preparations for the operation and it is feared that the diamonds might be stolen in transfer. So the British government cajoles former con-woman Modesty Blaise out of retirement, enlisting her help and asking for her expertise. But in this affair, there are many players, many sets of agendas, and many pieces of withheld information.
Unfortunately, this 1966 film chooses to throw itself whole-heartedly into the spirit of the decade, brandishing ridiculous outfits and interior design. These are not unintentionally ridiculous (as so many 1960s fashions were), but intentionally exaggerated. To get an idea of the film’s fashions, design, wigs, accessories, gadgets - and nudity – think of it as lying somewhere at the cross-section of 1967’s The Prisoner and 1968’s Barbarella.
While the story itself is no more outrageous than those of most other 1960s spy films, Modesty Blaise opts for a weirdly ridiculous, borderline-racist portrayal of an Arab Sheikh and his entourage; and for a final battle which is trying to be subversive. “Look at us”, the film seems to say, “isn’t all this marvellously silly?”. The filmmakers’ opinion seems to have been that epic battle scenes had been done to death in previous decades, and that you could possibly only do such a scene in 1966 by being ironic.
These decisions, together with the film’s visual style, give it quite a camp feel.
The cast is quite impressive. The film stars Terence Stamp as Modesty’s trusty sidekick Willie Garvin, and Dirk Bogarde as the evil genius behind the plot. There are also a number of well-known character-actors in this film, including Clive Revill and Harry Andrews. Tina Aumont gives a good performance in a minor supporting role, and she is undoubtedly the visual highlight of the film.
However, the film suffers from Monica Vitti’s unbearable performance as Modesty Blaise. The directing and writing are more to blame here than Vitti’s acting skills, one has to assume. But it is also her heavy accent that is distracting. Casting her made sense on paper, as Modesty Blaise is meant to be of foreign origin and possess a bit of an exotic allure. Vitti’s accent, however, together with all the artistic choices made for the character in this film, somehow create a character that one finds extremely difficult to take seriously. Those artistic choices are not limited to writing and directing – her wardrobe, as I mentioned – is outrageous and ridiculous. My assumption that this is an intentional choice does not change the fact that it contributes to a flawed representation of the Modesty character in this film.
There is a similar problem with Willie Garvin. In this film, he is portrayed as an effective killer, and quite a nasty womaniser, while he is also rather clownish in his approach to action and danger. Stamps hammy performance – again, surely a directing issue – puts the finishing touch to this very odd mishmash of a camp character.
The many flawed decisions the filmmakers took in regard to their main characters is highlighted by the small musical numbers they dropped into this film. Even though it is evidently unfitting for the source material as well as the film’s style and subject matter, Modesty and Willie are breaking into song midway through the film for no apparent reason. One might regard Vitti’s singing performance here as bad, but that is nothing compared to Stamp’s tone-deaf butchering of even the simplest melodies.
Around the half-way point, the film takes an unnecessarily long slump in story and action anyway, but the two short singing sequences manage to kill off any enjoyment you might have derived from some of the scenes so far. That is part of a greater pacing issue, as with its nearly two hours of running time the film feels definitely too long.
This film is not entirely awful – there are definitely worse films than this. But with some elements being bad, some being ludicrous, and some making no sense, you are left with a “rest” that is, for the most part, rather boring.
Rating: 3.5 to 4.0 out of 10