Teresa Reviews “The Secret Adversary” (1983): Close, but no cigar

Fidelity to text: 4 and 1/2 guns
This little wonder is the closest adaptation of the novel you’ll find anywhere. Scene for scene, line for line, this movie is faithful to the point of being weighed down. Novels are often simplified for filming because film is such a different medium. It’s also a medium that doesn’t let the viewer go back when something is unclear. Or at least, it didn’t until the advent of tapes and now DVDs where the viewer can rewind and rewatch an unclear section. But backtracking to figure out a complex bit of plot tosses one right out of the story and back onto the couch.

Quality of movie on its own: 3 guns

Flat and lackluster when it should be racing along vroom, vroom, vroom. Despite being an espionage thriller involving the potential collapse of the British government, kidnapping, and terrorists, Tommy and Tuppence outings should be sparkling, frothy, light as air. This film, sadly, was not. It’s fine. It’s competent. But it never came to life.

I’ve sat through all three versions of The Secret Adversary and I have to say this: no filmmaker has yet to do justice to the novel. This adaptation, with Francesca Annis as Tuppence and James Warwick as Tommy is exceedingly faithful yet it didn’t catch the spirit of the novel. They’re young adventurers, footloose and fancy-free. Francesca as Tuppence does an admirable job. James Warwick is … stiff. He resists the call to action that Tuppence leaps after — like a trout after a well-tied fly — yet I don’t recall him being so stodgy in the novel. Yes, he tries to rein in Tuppence but he’s excited too. He’s having fun and showing off for the damsel.

In this film, it feels like Tommy’s merely doing his duty to Tuppence and England. At least he’s being a man about it unlike David Walliams in his version of The Secret Adversary (terrible! Don’t watch it!) where he portrayed Tommy as being less manly than Homer Simpson. I do sense, in this production, that Tommy fought bravely in the war and endured terrible things. Nonetheless, he’s still young, male, fit, and bursting with hormones and that should be demonstrated onscreen.

It’s the actor, not the role, because Tommy has many opportunities to play the stalwart action hero, quick with a quip, his fists, and a handy lantern. He doesn’t even have to take his shirt off to provide the audience with gratuitous nudity and fan service. He rises to the occasion, but there’s always this sense of distance as if Tommy is wishing he were in his quiet garden deadheading roses, instead of doing what he must. You’d almost believe Tommy was lying back, closing his eyes, and thinking of England.

Julius P. Hersheimmer is much livelier than Tommy despite the actor (Gavan O’Herlihy) attempting a dreadful Texas accent. Wikipedia and Internet Movie Database disagree on where he was born (Hollywood or Dublin but in either case, he’s got Irish parents) so perhaps the accent issues arose naturally. Any problems Julius suffers in the script stem from Agatha herself having difficulties writing plausible Americans.

There is one “big name” in the production and that’s Honor Blackman, one of the first Bond Girls. She plays (who else?) the aging femme fatale and adventuress Rita Vandemeyer. Having an actress on hand like Honor Blackman is the reason to rewrite the source material so she can strut her stuff more than merely what the text says. What is Rita Vandemeyer’s backstory? Why is she so desperate for money? How did she meet the mysterious Mr. Brown? Does she have any loyalties to anyone? All fascinating questions that must be answered by the fanfiction writers of the world since the producers didn’t bother.

Well, they wouldn’t, since they were staying true to the text.

If The Secret Adversary gets remade again (assuming it isn’t butchered like the 2015 version) the producers should seize the opportunity and expand Ms. Vandemeyer’s role. She’s fascinating and enjoys the kind of louche life Tuppence wants if only her moral scruples didn’t get in the way. Ms. Vandemeyer has no moral scruples. Sadly, age is catching up with Ms. Vandemeyer which is the only reason Tuppence got the drop on her. That must be the reason she entertains Tuppence’s suggestion that she accept a huge payout and vanish to a quiet, anonymous life where she can grow old and safely deadhead her roses in peace.

Or not! For the likes of Rita Vandemeyer, dying in the saddle might be the preferred option to a long, slow decline.

There is a lot to like about this movie despite the lack of effervescence. The producers went all out on settings, accessories, clothes, even a jaunty score. Those glorious vintage limousines, all Rolls-Royces, it appears. One scene after another at the Ritz making me wish I could time-travel back to 1919 and stay there despite the lack of central heating. Those sumptuous meals complete with sparking crystal and glittering chandeliers and white-gloved waiters.

And the clothes. Oh my God, the clothes. Tuppence, despite her poverty, is a very snappy dresser as is Rita Vandemeyer. So are Tommy, Julius, and everyone else. Even the background low-life thugs manage to look snazzy. Notice how Tommy, despite his stated poverty, still owns evening wear. He could have pawned his tuxedo, but he hasn’t had to sink that low. Not yet.

One point about the clothes. In 1919, flappers had yet to show up on the scene which is why you don’t see any cloche hats, fringe, or shingled bobs. Most people, unless they were very rich, were making do with older clothes or altering them to fit the changing fashion. Fashions were changing radically compared to pre-war days, becoming lighter in weight, shorter, and less heavily ornamented. For ladies, that meant raising hemlines and removing excess fabric to stay in style. It’s surprising how much a dress can be remade if you’re skilled with a needle and willing to take the garment apart by ripping every single seam. Once you’ve done that, iron every scrap and then recut a new dress using only the least worn pieces of cloth. New clothing was costly so someone flat-broke like Tuppence, despite the gorgeous wardrobe you see her wearing, would have done just that. Once you’ve made over a dress into the current fashion, the matching hat gets constructed from the scraps.

That’s why I couldn’t buy that scene where Tommy and Julius come across the little girl on the beach wearing Tuppence’s clothes. Virtually any child (other than a very wealthy one) would have known, coming across flotsam like an expensive, lace-trimmed dress and hat, to pick it up and bring it straight home to mother. Yes, all that cloth and trim would have been worn again but only after it was carefully washed and remade. It would not have become a child’s dress-up outfit for the beach. Mom or big sister would have gotten first dibs. This would even be true of a governess, nanny, or maid for much the same reasons. A new dress? Well worth the hours it would take to remake a free piece of salvage.

Notice also Tuppence’s astonishing and openly worn cosmetics (those eyebrows!). Before the war, that kind of ostentatious makeup was the hallmark of prostitutes and actresses. A vicar’s daughter like Tuppence would have never worn that sort of paint in public. Times changed.

Do you wonder how Tuppence, poor vicar’s daughter but still a member of the gentry, could have successfully posed as a maid for Rita Vandemeyer? Tuppence, like most other members of the gentry and higher up, had watched plenty of maids in action. She imitated what she saw when posing as Rita Vandemeyer’s new maid. Rita bought Tuppence’s story because it was true. Girls like Tuppence had to take whatever respectable work they could find after the war. Plenty of upper-class women accepted whatever story they were told simply to get a servant. Too many former housemaids had discovered the benefits of factory work where you got to go home at the end of the day.

All in all, The Secret Adversary is worth watching. It’s a great period piece and easy on the eyes. But I wouldn’t necessarily watch it a second time.