Broadcast: Sunday, 24^th May, 1953

Character: William Shakespeare

The Story

The action takes place in Stratford-Upon-Avon and London in the 17th Century

• Scene 1: The cottage in Stratford, 1584
• Scene 2: The Palace of Whitehall – 10 years later
• Scene 3: Backstage at the Globe Theatre – the first performance of ‘Romeo and Juliet’
• Scene 4: Shakespeare’s lodgings in London, the same year
• Scene 5: An inn at Deptford – the same night
• Scene 6 The Palace of Whitehall – the next afternoon

Rudolph Cartier’s production of Miss Clement Dane’s ‘invention’ was a spirited and dramatic explanation of a problem which has troubled critics and commentators for centuries. How did Will, a seemingly raw and ordinary lad from Stratford, become William Shakespeare, the greatest dramatist of all time; what were the forces that shaped him?

The story begins, funnily enough, in Stratford with Will, though only 20, already married to an ill-tempered Anne Hathaway. Fame, in the shape of Henslowe, a strolling minstrel, beckons the young man to London and encouraged, too, by the coursing demand of his genius, the cries of his characters as yet unborn.

Will (Peter Wyngarde) chooses to seek his fortune and finds it. He also discovers the exacting price of fame. We are to see some of the stormy seas which beset him, and also some of the experiences which contained the very stuff of tragedy.

Here is Kit Marlowe, Murray, the Dark Lady of the Sonnets, and, overshadowing all of them, the splendid figure of Queen Elizabeth I. She is the heroine of this play – concerned for her drama as she was for her navy, and ringing greatness from herself and from Will.

Many of Will’s yet-to-be characters made an appearance in the play, including Ophelia, Desdemona, Hamlet, Rosalind, Shylock, Falstaff and MacDuff – the latter played by the future film and stage director, John Schlessinger.

Ms. Dane certainly presents Shakespeare as a wordy, windy and morbidly introspective man; certainlythe long speeches, most of them in blank verse, may well have bored many viewers.  

Her Elizabeth I was evidently influenced by subsequent twentieth-century representations, and her portrayal of Shakespeare’s relationship with Christopher Marlowe (and others, seldom read or performed today) were equally shaped by myths current in 1921, which was when the play was written.

Broadcast: Thursday, 22nd June, 1967

Character: Turen

The Story

Istanbul: Simon Templar (Roger Moore) is in the Turkish capital to meet his old friend, Geoffrey Bane (Hedger Wallace) – deputy curator of the Silbatakin Museum; home to the 3,000-year-old Gadic Collection.

While he waits for Bane in one of Museum’s galleries, Templar notices a young woman by the name of Ayesha (Nicole Shelby), who appears to be comparing the items from the Gadic Collection to a set of photographs she has with her. He also observes that she’s being watched by a somewhat unkempt man of seemingly local origin, whose attempt to grab and manhandle her to the ground is thwarted by Templar’s timely intervention.

As she hastily makes her exit from the museum gallery, Ayesha drops several of the photographs which Templar retrieves and hands to Bane on his arrival. The images are taken to the Curator, Ahmed Bayer (Andre Van Gysegham), who recalls that the last time the Gadic Collection was outside the Museum had been 30 years ago, which couldn’t possibly have been when the photographs were taken. It transpires, however, that the artifacts had been taken off display just 3 months earlier for cleaning. The work had been carried out, not by the Museum itself, but by an outside specialist by the name of Abdul Kemal. Templar and Bane decide to pay this contractor a visit, but when they reach his workshop in the city they find it abandoned.

Peter as Turen

Kamal is shown the photographs that Ayesha had dropped at the museum and admits to having taken them for the purpose of making replicas of the items from the famous Gadic Collection. He had latterly sold the forgeries to a wealthy foreign art collector. Watching Templar and Bane leave Kamel’s home is Sukan (Michael Ripper), who his himself interested in The Gadic Collection.

Later that evening at his hotel in the city, Templar receives a call from Geoffrey Banewho asks the Englishman to meet him at the Museum. However, when he arrives there he finds Bane dead in his office having discovered that the Collection in the Museum is fake. Within minutes, the police arrive.

Templar attempts to explain to Inspector Yolu (Martin Benson), the senior officer on the scene, what had happened so far – insisting that Ayesha and her uncle will confirm his story, but when they arrive at Kamel’s home they find no one there and that the house appears as if no one has lived there for some years.

After being released by the police on license, Templar returns to Kamal’s home where he runs into an elderly couple who live in the same building. While both of them had seen him, Ayesha and Bane the previous day, they had had told the police they had never seen the Englishman before and that they knew nothing of Kamal. Templar learns that Kamal had paid them to lie to the police.

Peter with Roger Moore as Simon Templar and Michael Ripper as Sukan.

With the help of Ayesha, Templar retrieves the genuine Gadic Collection from where Kamal had hidden them and returns them to the Museum. With Inspector Yolu present, the Englishman reveals that Kabal had not acted alone. Indeed, the instigator of the plot is none other than curator, Ahmed Bayer!

With the real Collection back on display in the Museum, the fakes are handed over to Templar by the police to dispose of a his discretion. With the full approval of Turen’s now estranged wife, Templar contacts the crook who agrees to buy the ‘Collection’ for $100,000, believing it to be the genuine article, with Diya and Templar splitting the proceeds.

A Bit Of Trivia

• Freddie Francis, the director of this episode, also directed Peter in ‘The Innocents’.
• Peter hated ‘The Gadic Collection’ and never watched it.
• In the 2015 Channel 4 documentary, ‘It Was Alight In The Sixties’, Peter was hauled over the coals for ‘Blacking-Up’ to play Turen. The condescending producer of the programme didn’t appear to realise that white actors playing ethic characters was the done thing back in the 1960s, and that Peter wasn’t unique in doing this.

Broadcast: Sunday, 5th January 1950

Character: Charles Granillo

The first edition of the Radio Times in 1950 advised “People with weak nerves” to find something “soothing” to do such as play dominos or draughts when the BBC broadcast Stephen Harrison’s production of Rope, as it might be too much for them. may be too much for them.

Patrick Hamilton’s Rope concerns upper class Oxford student Wyndham Brandon (David Markham) who, under the malign influence of German philosopher, Fredrich Nietzsche and his philosophy of the Ubermensch – the superior man, persuades his weak-minded friend, Charles Granillo (Peter Wyngarde), to help him in the murder a fellow undergraduate, Ronald Raglan, simply for the fun of it.

The pair then place the body in a wooden chest, and to add spice to their crime, invite some carefully chosen acquaintances – including the Raglan’s father, Kenneth (Floyd Allen) – to a dinner party, using the chest as the table from which the food is served.

The theme of the play was suggested by a classic American murder case, in which two young men killed a friend solely for the pleasure of killing him. No motive, surely, could be more appalling.

Brandon’s first topic of conversation at the party is, of course, murder and, inevitably, the death penalty. Since the play is the perfect whodunit in reverse, as it has the distinction of revealing the murderers from the outset; the thrill of it is to see whether his two undergraduates will get away with it… or end up on the end of a rope.

The man who, in the end, defeats the murderers is poet, Rupert Cadell (Alan Wheatley), who finds the first world war has not made him quite the amoral cynic he thought he’d become. He spots the one mistake that Brandon and Granillo have made. With what appears to be his singular insight into Brandon’s perverted character, Cadell points out that even a seemingly motiveless murder is bound to be found to be solved.

“Because, dear Brandon, that sort of murder would not be a motiveless murder at all. It would ever quietly emotive. Vanity! It will be a murder of vanity. And because of that, the criminal would be quite unable to keep from talking about it or showing it off in some fantastic way or another”.

Hamilton creates tension not with an Agatha Christie-style guessing game, but with the fear of imminent exposure. As with many plays of the era, Rope values neatly constructed plot over character development. It delighted momentarily, but had little further resonance.

Patrick Hamilton always denied that the famous case involving Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb case in the United States in 1924 in which two teenagers from prominent Chicago families committed an apparently motiveless murder of a 14-year-old boy, was the inspiration for Rope. The similarities between his play, and the Leopold and Loeb crime, make his claim lack credibility.

At the time, this was the 2^nd television production of the play.

‘The Ballard of Snivelling and Grudge’

Broadcast: Tuesday, 25th December, 1984

Character: Sir Guy

Since the early 70s when the supremo style and panache of superscribe, Jason king, rule supreme and was hardly ever off our TV screens, appreciation on the box by the man behind one of television’s all-time favourite characters, Peter Wyngarde, have been all too brief and few and far between. One such appearance was the guest star on The Two Ronnie’s Christmas Special on BBC television in 1984. For all self-respecting members of the Hellfire club, this is definitely one performance not to be missed.

gold robes – his horse decked out to match – his tousled locks flowing in the wind and his fine aristocratic features, he portrays a masterful and mischievous look. His majestic air is completed by a bird of prey perched on his arm! Here we have a man of style and authority, perhaps a distant mediaeval ancestor of the inimitable and illustrious Mr. King!

Sir Guy seeks out the two peasants, Snivelling (Ronnie Corbett) and Grudge (Ronnie Barker) who, apparently, dabble in the medicine of the day and who he hopes might assist his beloved daughter who, we learn, has sunk into a deep despair over a lost love.

His henchmen search high and low for the pair, but when the hunt proves fruitless, Sir Guy calls for his Sergeant at Arms. Alas, the poor soldier is unable to get a word in, as his Master cusses and shouts over him. Despite his inability to respond to a single demand his superior makes, the hapless subordinate is given the following warning: “I’ve had enough of you! One more word from you and I’ll have you beheaded!”

The tongue-tied sergeant at managed to begin a sentence, but the impatient Sir Guy once again cuts him dead before he’s able to finish – bellowing, “Answer me!” Again the browbeaten sergeant splutters and stammers over his reply, which is of course all too much for his Lordship: “That’s it!” he yells. “Off with his head!”

It’s at this very point that the two miserable peasants appear from the undergrowth, led by the soldiers. Sir Guy appears to rest more easily in his saddle as he has the two men brought to him. Snivelling immediately pays due homage: “Honoured to be in your presence, m’Lord,” he sniffles, then throws himself to the grand and kisses the horse on one of its hoofs. Sir Guy looks down from aloft at this… person and slightly puzzled and demands, “What are you doing?”

“I’m kissing your ‘orse, m’Lord.”

“Are you Snivelling?” inquires his Lordship, to which the ragamuffin replies, “No – Snivelling!”

Silent until now, Grudge now decides to chime in: “We ain’t done nuffin’ wrong, m’Lord… but we’d like 27 other offenses to be taken into account.”

But all Sir Guy is interested in is their ability to help his daughter, and so he enquires: “Did you two miserable creatures sell a patent medicine to a Freeman of the City?”

Grudge, fearing the worst, quickly replies, “No! No! We didn’t!… Well, we might have done.” He turns to his friend to get his reaction to what had just been said.

“It cured his constipation,” Sir Guy continues, quite oblivious to Grudge. “Do you think you could help my daughter? She’s fallen into a morbid flux”.

“Oh, I stepped into one of those myself,” Grudge sniggers.

Clearly not taking in anything the two down and outs are saying, Sir Guy simply continues with his concerns about his daughter: “She is much distempered!”

Concerned, Snivelling interjects: “Oh, we don’t do decorating!”

This latest interruption doesn’t go down at all well with Sir Guy, who demands: “You will give her your Ethiopian Elixir. The alternative is the rack!”

Missing the order entirely, Snivelling responds with concern: “Oh, she doesn’t deserve that, m’Lord!”

Angered by the obvious stupidity of the pair, Sir Guy makes it clear that The Rack awaits them if they fail to cure his beloved daughter: “For YOU! Followed by hanging, drawing and quartering!”

He instructs his soldiers to take the “learned gentlemen” to his daughter’s apartments but has a warning for them before he gallops off: “You have until the cock crows!” Snivelling and Grudge are left to ponder their fate.

“What do we do?” inquires Snivelling of his friend. “Well, for a start we strangle the cock!” comes the reply.

The action now transfers to Sir Guy’s castle. The two peasants are seated next to the young maiden’s bedside as she lies in slumber. While they are trying in desperation to hatch plan to escape, they fall asleep and fail to hear the wandering minstrel enter the room and attempt to comfort the tender young maiden, serenading her with this ditty:

In the meantime, Snivelling and Grudge have managed to find a secret passage from the castle and make their escape. Seconds later, in comes the girl’s anxious father who is shocked to find that the two peasants have fled. He immediately dispatches his soldiers to follow the escapees. Pausing for a moment, he listens to the content murmurings coming from behind his daughter’s bed curtains. Speechless, he takes another quick look and emerges with a rather puzzled look on his face.

At first light, the two peasants are being chased through the forest by Sir Guy and his henchmen – completely unaware that the fearsome Lord believes that its they that are responsible for his daughter’s newfound happiness.

With no sign of their quarry, Sir Guy halts his men in a clearing. “Cures! Curses!” he exclaims, producing a bag of coins. “I’ve brought them this 10 pieces of gold. I’ve never seen my daughter so happy. Someone must have given her the right medicine!“ Sighing, he tosses the purse over his shoulder and then gallops off to carry on with this business round the estate.

In the meantime, Snivelling and Grudge have concealed themselves in the very cunning disguise of a horse, and are making a getaway through the forest.

Written by Christine Whitnall

Written by Jason P. Quirk

The name of Peter Quint strikes fear into some who hear it. The name is that of some kind of monster… Or it is just that of a course and perhaps highly sexualised man of lowly station who is just a corrupter of virtue and innocence…

When I hear the name of Peter Quint I think of my grandfather as I was reading about Peter Quint in the original source material The Turn of the Screw (1899-1900) written by Henry James (1843-1916) the night my grandfather died…. I never finished that novella and was spooked by what was essentially a ghost story. Peter Quint for boys is the male adult of who leaves an impression on them either good or bad as a part of their childhood. I wondered if my grandfather had pulled the pin deliberately and staged his death that night to leave maximum impression…

repression, while others say it’s all about ghosts and it could be too – but, really, it’s about the corruption of the young and even the madness of not giving into corruption – for some.

There is the character of Quint played by Robert Shaw in Steven Spielberg’s Jaws (1975) who is of the ilk of the Peter Quint character in The Turn of the Screw… The original novel is set in Victorian England and was printed in weekly portions before being published in book form. Most people these days say it deals with sexual repression, while others say it’s all about ghosts and it could be too – but, really, it’s about the corruption of the young and even the madness of not giving into corruption – for some.

There are some interesting versions of the novel which have been transformed onscreen. The best being director Jack Clayton’s (1921-95 heart attack) The Innocents (1961) starring Deborah Kerr (1921-2007 Parkinson’s disease) as the repressed governess to two young children named Miles and Flora on a large countryside estate owned by their uncle. It was there the previous governess had died under mysterious circumstances along with another manservant on the grounds Peter Quint. Kerr becomes obsessed with these two dead servants, so much so that she begins seeing them around the house and gardens.

This dead pair seem to have left and impression on the children in terms of bad language and also ape their sexual behaviour to a certain degree.

The story, as told in The Innocents, has a great performance by Kerr as the governess who may really be seeing ghosts, or are they just hallucinations conjured by her own Victorian repressed sexuality. She knows these two had a sex life and even the children may have one among themselves as in one version of the story they dress up and apply lipstick and fondle each other.

Filmed in Cinemascope The Innocents opens with the praying hands of Kerr’s governess, possibly in a madhouse as she weeps. She is trying to save the souls of the children with prayer. The film also ends with the clasped hands as a kind of bookend. Sometime director Freddie Francis (1917-2007 after stroke) photographed the movie and a whole article could be written about his use of the widescreen and the black and white film stock.

“I want to save the children not destroy them,” Kerr tells herself about her worries that the souls of the children are possibly lost.

The truth being that once the innocence of a child has been erased to a certain degree, there is no going back, except if the child is perhaps only aping the behaviour of the corrupt adult – say of the name of Peter Quint… there is still a kind of innocence in that case if the child does not fully understand what is happening… As Kerr becomes involved with the household and knows of its past, she possibly, as a Christian, grows hysterical when the extent of Quint’s reputation starts to manifest itself as he hardly led people down the path of righteousness including children… As a result, it has her groaning sexually in her sleep while the children watch. Her latent sexuality is near awoken but she will not allow it.

Kerr’s sexual innocence is one that has remained intact or ‘pure’ since childhood we assume and also through adolescence. She thinks the same should be for Miles and Flora, but the children have already seen things. We suspect Quint and his woman even made love in front of the fireplace, but it is all ghostly and unproveable. They are impressions in the minds of the children.

Flora knows foul language and Miles kisses Kerr full on the lips like a lover despite being barely eight or ten years old. This is shown in close-up in the movie just to underline the point. The photography as I mentioned is fantastic with dark corridors in the house enclosing the characters from either side almost like death or an otherworldly realm.

“Thank heaven for children,” says the head maid played by Megs Jenkins (1917-98). This actress would appear again as the maid in another version entitled The Turn of the Screw (1974) which starred Lynn Redgrave as the governess. Shot on video tape, this is a solid adaptation by American director Dan Curtis.

And also from the maid: “He really had the devil’s own eyes” she says of no one in particular except Quint himself and she swallows her words when Kerr almost gasps. He is a character who we only see briefly in this movie but Peter Wyngarde (1928-2018 unspecified) makes a great impression in the role. It is an evil countenance.

“Would the Lord just leave me here to walk around? Doesn’t that happen to some people?,” asks Flora of Kerr after saying her prayers and doubting their efficacy. Flora innocently believes in ghosts at this point in the movie.

And so, we have the set up as we will wonder if the house is haunted by the spectre of Peter Quint, or is it only the minds of those in his former living realm that are disturbed by his spirit as it was in life and the troubles it has left behind in those who know him and those infected by his legend through word of mouth.

Meanwhile the boy Miles may have the power “to contaminate, to corrupt” says Kerr to the maid and herself with a spooked look on her face… It is said that the author of the novel Henry James had his own Peter Quint in the form of his father who chose for his son not to be educated in the classics but had him opened up to many influences, both scientific and philosophical, which one biographer described as “haphazard and promiscuous”. It should also be added that James admired the morally ambiguous and totally human work of the French writer Honore de Balzac (1700-1850).

The excellent script for The Innocents is based on the 1950 play by William Archibald (1917-70 hepatitis) with the help of legend Truman Capote (1924-84 liver disease and drug overdose) while there are extra scenes by John Mortimer (1923-2009 stroke) of Rumpole of the Bailey fame.

Archibald’s original play said the ghosts in James’ novel were real but one could imagine Capote injecting the repressed sexuality scenario into the new screenplay. It was director Clayton who decided to go with the psychological aspect of the script right through to the ending and he asked Kerr to try and balance her performance between reality and unreality, something she found to be difficult and intense. Archibald was upset about the doubts cast about the ghosts and argued with Clayton… The director won out and a classic was forged with the children watching Kerr moan in her sleep and Miles later strangling Kerr in fun and games like some sado-masochistic lover getting carried away.

Part of the blurring of reality and the ghosts Kerr sees in the children themselves as well as a part of her disturbed personality is suggested when she says: “They’re playing some monstrous game” with the words monstrous and game brought together to show corruption and innocence as well as reality and unreality and perhaps also the evil supernatural and the rules of the psychological: “Unless they’re deceiving us, unless they’re both deceiving us… the innocents!”

Kerr says the title of the movie with irony and yet there is no conviction to this irony as if she herself can’t even imagine how the kids could deceive her. It’s as if Kerr has forgotten what it’s like to be a child, or else she was raised in a convent and has a childish adult perspective of an uninitiated adolescent.

The strange thing about the effect of Peter Quint, once his spirit or legend takes hold of Kerr, is that it’s effect on Miles is twofold just as the spirit of Quint’s governess girlfriend Miss Jessell affects Flora…. So massively when Kerr tells her the ghost is present.

Not only does Quint and Miss Jessell’s contact with the children before their deaths remain intact in the minds of Miles and Flora but Kerr’s stirring of the memories of these dead personalities from Resting in Peace again into the monsters they once were, makes them seem they ‘once are’ once more. So, the children are The Innocents as Kerr overestimates how corrupt they really are.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/o5Q-dIJeX8Q?feature=oembedThe Innocents (1961) trailer

“They lure, they know, they share this hell,” says Kerr about “casting out these devil’s forever” as she sees the ghosts as a manifestation of the children and still can’t see how it is herself which is responsible for these so-called manifestations in the first place. It is like she has a neurosis as she projects it upon the children themselves.

Let me just mention that Kerr was around forty when she made this movie and the role in the original novel had the governess aged only around twenty. It’s an amazing performance.

Further, the sound design for the movie is pure genius at moments especially when matched with Clayton and Francis’ work… Let’s not go into that as you must study the movie yourself.

The ending of the movie has Kerr reducing Flora into a screaming hysterical mess while a bit later Miles dies of heart failure after imagining he sees or can sense the presence of Peter Quint after Kerr prompts him that he is watching from the darkness. Such is the essence of ghost stories. Quint in Miles mind may have returned from the grave as the boy succumbs with no REAL presence. Or was there? The power of suggestion can kill. So, the legend of Peter Quint has imprinted himself in his lifetime on the boy and in the boy’s death as well. Such is the experience of some children who suffer or learn at the hands of adults. Kerr as a teacher hoped her Christian learning would also rub off on the children while Quint’s lessons in life are on the other far end of the scale. It is sometimes not the fault of the children that they learn such behaviour in certain communities or in a society… the Quint affect continues… even Kerr’s Christian ‘cruelty’ in the end against Miles and Flora is comparable to Quint, or even worse, once she is too is affected by this man. Triggered late in life after a lifetime of prayer, something she returns to at the very end as she doesn’t take responsibility of the reality of the ending but instead directs it with her belief in Christ and the New Testament. It possibly saves her but not the children as she wished and she prays with an almost detached delusion.

Kerr has seen two worlds collide in terms of her own Christianity and those who live without it… Unfortunately, ghosts, whether they are in the mind on a part of the supernatural can destroy lives and that goes for the man that was Peter Quint who was obviously not a Christian at all.

There was a prequel to The Turn of the Screw directed by Michael Winner (1935-2013) entitled The Nightcomers (1971). It starred Marlon Brando (1924-2004 respiratory failure) as Peter Quint and it showed some of his boorish behaviour as well as his intelligence laziness and lust. The most interesting part of this movie is perhaps the ending where the children murder Miss Jessell and Peter Quint, which is probably the ultimate set up for the original novel The Turn of the Screw. The children are older in The Nightcomers and so the sexual themes could be explored further.

As you know, Winner isn’t known for being a great director and the script is by Michael Hastings (1938-2011). I found the movie forgettable otherwise.

The trailer proclaimed: “Marlon Brando as Peter Quint who took two children and taught them everything” while it also mentioned Brando’s “Inventive film acting.”

Another remake of the original stars one of my favourite underused actresses from the 1990s… Her name is Jodhi May (1975-) and she stars in the 1999 version of the movie which keeps the original title. May, some will remember, was the younger sister in The Last of the Mohicans (1993). She does a good job here. Whereas the uncle, who gives the governess the job at the beginning of The Innocents, was played by Michael Redgrave (1908-85 Parkinson’s disease), here it is played by Colin Firth (1960-). It’s a good movie and the ending, rather than having Miles die of heart failure, instead has May seem to smother him to death at her breast. Certainly, another way to express repressed sexuality.

Then there’s director Rusty Lemorande’s version made in 1992 which doesn’t quite have the polish or the previous films and it has languished in obscurity thanks to its reputation. It is however a different take on the tale. This one has Patsy Kensit (1968-) as the governess and the movie this time is set during the 1960s with Julian Sands (1958-) as the uncle and French actress Stephane Audran (1932-2018) as the maid or housekeeper. There is even a performance which bookends the movie by Marianne Faithfull (1946-) who tells the tale from a diary and who may be Flora now one of the inmates of a ‘home’. It’s a version which, like the Dan Curtis version starring Lynn Redgrave, is agreeable without being particularly special.

And I will visit another version from a couple of decades back which was a Spanish-American production which starred Sadie Frost (1965-) as the governess, Harvey Keitel (1939-) as the uncle and Lauren Bacall (1924-2014 stroke) as the governess. It is called Presence of Mind (1999). Set in Catholic Spain at the turn of the 20^th Century, it has the courage to use an adolescent child in the form of NIlo Zimmerman (Nilo Mur) (1986-) and more or less have a scene of sensuality of the child changing his clothes in front of Frost and baring his backside. The film is not a great one otherwise but here’s some dialogue to wrap up the article.

“The dead are dead Miss… There’s nothing else they can do to harm the living anymore,” says Lauren Bacall in an ironic twist for later on. And meanwhile Miles later in the classroom looks up the word ‘ghost’ in the dictionary… “Because sometimes things have more than one meaning. Ghost. One, the spirit or soul. Two, or haunting memory. And three, the supposed spirit of a dead person, appearing to the living as a shadowy apparition…. If ghosts don’t exist. Then why are they in the lexicon.”

https://www.youtube.com/embed/fbzvXq7j3kA?feature=oembedPresence of Mind (1999) trailer

Well, I guess they are not banned and Kerr reads about the Holy Ghost in her Bible… Why is it that many of us are fascinated by ghost stories? Why do we like being scared by them? Or why do we become scared in the first place? There must remain some doubt as to their existence for us to let them into our mind and scare us… for some, deeply.

And so, I am back to the spirit of my grandfather as the dusty winds blew through the window of my second-floor apartment with the curtains blowing and I imagined this man who had shown me Treasure Island through to Tennessee Williams from Jaws (Quint! Quint! Quint!) through to Jacques Tati had returned to admonish me for being a failure… It was at that midnight hour when I could not sleep that my mind began to disintegrate to a point where I would be almost classically mad…

He had once warned me with a laugh of Dame Judith Anderson’s character in Rebecca (1940) as she madly and almost queerly believed that there could be such a thing as a ghost in the first place. I see now in that dusty midnight hour that I need not have been scared and I need not believe he had returned to torture me: “He was dead” and like in Old Marley in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol: “as a doornail”!

And like Kerr, I pray over this keyboard with a sense I don’t really believe this at all and yet I try to believe in the good in people… and try to forget the Peter Quints’ of the world who may haunt me either living or dead for the rest of my mortal existence.

With grateful and sincere thanks to J.P. Quirk for allowing us to reproduce this work.

Click below for more about The Innocents

Soviet-style language, sockpuppetry and importuning

One bemused old man’s journey into the bizarre world of Wikipedia

Written by Austin Makinson

Towards the end of June (2022), I sent an email to this website concerning, amongst other things, the myths that continue to surround Peter Wyngarde – the origins of which, more often than not, can be traced back to the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

My Email: 27th June, 2022 Hello Tina, Just been reading many of the comments below and was especially shocked to learn about the amount of misinformation there is out there about Peter. It must have been appalling for him to have to live knowing that there are such malicious and unthinking people out there. As someone has already stated, what ever has happened to ‘Do unto others as you would have done unto you’? As has quite rightly been highlighted on this page, Wikipedia (W.P.) has much to answer for. I recall them insisting at one time that Peter had been given a police caution in 1974, supposedly for importuning in Birmingham. They asserted that the information had come from a book entitled, ‘Crime Through Time: the Black Museum’ by Stephen Richards. The trouble was there was no such claim in the book. But even if this allegation had been in this publication, what made Wiki believe that the Richard’s was correct? It was actually a very serious statement to repeat, especially as Mr Wyngarde was alive at the time this appeared on Wikipedia, and since much research has been done both by myself and other, there has been no evidence found to substantiate this declaration*. Had the Wiki lot stopped to consider for a second what impact such false information could have on someones life? Evidently not. From Wikipedia, this blatant lie has since seeped into the public consciousness having been picked up by the press. I wonder if the person or persons responsible for posting it on W.P. have or ever will have the decency to apologise? I for one won’t be holding my breath! I’ve attempted to contribute to the Peter Wyngarde biography on W.P., but despite there being an open invitation to any and all of us add to the encyclopedia, my contribution(s) have immediately been deleted by those that have created the P.W. biography. Another thing about those referred to above and the fuss they make over Peter embellishing his ‘biography’: As has been pointed out previously on this page, almost every actor did this. In addition to those personalities already mentioned, there’s William Hartnell. He claimed that his father was a farmer but latterly said he was a soldier who’d taken up stockbroking. Where’s the song and dance over that? There is far too much reliance on W.P. by the press, bloggers, authors and the public in general. The people who compile these biographies and other articles on there are not philosophers and scholars they’re just ordinary Joes like the rest of us with no access to privilege knowledge than anyone else. They simply cherry pick what they think will pique the reader’s interest while discarding the information that doesn’t fit their agenda. In that they’re no different to the tabloid newspapers that feed off them. Bless you Tina in you’re inexhaustible mission to expose the truth. Austin Makinson * All references to this alleged incident in the press have come AFTER this allegation was made on Wikipedia, NOT before.

Following the publication of my email [see right] both on this website and the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society Facebook Group page, it was reported that over 312 Wyngarde fans responded to the points I’d raised via the aforementioned platforms.

One of those people was a gent by the name of Andrew Humphries, who himself is a member of the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society (O.P.W.A.S.) and is also a semi-regular contributor to Wikipedia (W.P.).

Mr Humphries took it upon himself to investigate one of the more damaging assertions made by W.P., namely that Peter Wyngarde had been “cautioned” for importuning in Kennedy Gardens, Birmingham, in 1974. It was claimed at the time that the source of this story had been a book entitled, ‘Crimes Through Time: The Black Museum’ by Stephen Richards (Mirage Publishing – 2003), but no mention of such an incident could be found in the book.

According to Tina Wyngarde-Hopkins[1] who was Wyngarde’s soulmate for almost 30 years the actor had, from time to time, referred to an episode that had taken place in Gloucester in 1975, but had never once spoken of an incident in Birmingham a year earlier.

While this baseless contention had latterly been removed from the Peter Wyngarde biography, it was reuploaded onto Wikipedia in 2018. The ‘Contributor’ responsible for this cited The Mirror[2] as his/her source without realising that The Mirror had got the story from Wikipedia in the first place (Andrew Humphries sleuthing at the end of June and into July of 2002 revealed categorically that this myth had it’s roots firmly planted in Wikipedia soil).

Conclusion of Andrew Humphries detective work: ‘I have been sleuthing again, because I found some blogs from 2013 and 2014 that mentioned a Kennedy Gardens incident. This was long before the 2018 Mirror article that I said was the original source, but I can see I was wrong about that. Looking at the Wikipedia article again, but going back much further, I can see that a user added the info on 28 Sept 2010, but with no source. It was only removed by another user in about June 2016 who noticed it was not sourced, or not sourced properly. It was then added back in after the Mirror article was published in Jan 2018, but without any citation of The Mirror. The true crime book was already a source for something else, and sloppy editing made it look like it was also being cited for this new info. I tend to agree with Tina [Wyngarde-Hopkins] now, that the earliest trace of this factoid is when a Wikipedia editor added it in 28 Sept 2010. It *appears* to have been sincerely added as a fact, and specific newspapers are mentioned, but without any proper verifiable source or citation. As for The Mirror, I think they probably had a pre-written obit for PW, perhaps prepared when that questionable info had been live on Wikipedia between 2010 and 2016.’ Andrew Humphries

Although I was warned several times about how jealously the Wikipedia PW biog is guarded, and that the chances of me being allowed to contribute, edit, change or challenge any of its content was virtually nil, I decided to chance my arm and join Wikipedia nonetheless. I mean, what’s the worst that could happen? Famous last words…

And so by merely entering a ‘Username’ and not much else, I was suddenly to find myself a fully-fledged Wikipedia “Expert” who was free to post on just about any subject I fancied, regardless of whether I actually had any knowledge about it or not. After locating the Peter Wyngarde biography, I went ahead and added the following into the body of the article:-

It was wrongly stated on this page some years ago that Peter Wyngarde had been arrested and charged for importuning at Kennedy Gardens, Birmingham in 1974. The origin of this claim was said to have been ‘Crime Through The Ages: The Black Museum’, a 2003 publication by Stephen Richards. It has latterly been discovered that the author of this book was in error and that the contributor responsible for repeating this unreliable information here had failed to carry out the necessary checks befitting such a consequential statement. It is now understood that much pain, anger and embarrassment had been caused to Mr Wyngarde by this appalling inaccuracy prior to his death. While this wholly inaccurate paragraph has since been withdrawn it had, unfortunately, already been picked up on by the British press and subsequently republished by bloggers and those frequenting online forums, which is continuing to cause unimaginable upset to those people closest to Mr Wyngarde and who still morn him. This is of sincere and deep regret.’

As predicted, my contribution was immediately removed by someone calling his or herself ‘Theheartof’ (username), who turned out to be one of the dreaded editors/admins/contributors that oversee the biography. I was duly informed that I’d broken W.P. rules by not “discussing” with (for this read ‘failing to gain the permission of’) the conglomerate that appear to own this particular article. And so a ‘discussion’ ensued between myself and others during the course of which I attempted to put my case across. Not unsurprisingly, the false information about Wyngarde which had been proven to have originated on Wikipedia and latterly seized upon by the tabloids, was explained away as “vandalism”[3], which seems to be the go-to excuse for anything any one of these ‘Contributors’ gets wrong. And yet in spite of this defacement being reposted on Wikipedia for a second time in 2018, I was soon to realise that the chances of anyone actually acknowledging the damage caused by this misinformation was even less likely than my contribution being allowed to stand.

Being point-blankly prevented from updating, editing or contributing to the online encyclopedia is not unique to this specific ‘biography’. Watch Sharyl Attkisson’s jaw-dropping exposé ‘The Dark Side Of Wikipedia’ by clicking HERE

Now that the shutters had come down on any kind of dialogue regarding the Kennedy Gardens myth and my protest ostensibly being stifled, I attempted to debate as to why, when there are so many more credible sources of information out there about Peter Wyngarde, this apparent closed shop still insist on quoting so persistently from a universally condemned “obituary” published by The Guardian three days after Wyngarde’s death in January 2018. Once again, I was shouted down. I was soon to discover why… (see under ‘Suddenly It All Becomes Clear…’ later in this article).

Above: Peter Wyngarde has repeatedly been misrepresented by Wikipedia contributors

Having basically given up on getting anywhere with both the first and second issues I’d raised, I thought I’d take a look at what else was being discussed in the ‘Talk’ section of the Wyngarde biography. It was then that I came across the following under the title, “1 child” in Infobox:-

“This has been recently added, but there is no source nor any other evidence that he [Peter Wyngarde] and Dorinda Stevens [Peter’s wife of 5 years] had a child together. Delete?” “Theheartof (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC) [reply] “Have removed as unsourced. Was added here on 24 August, by User: Ecosseboy, who might care to explain further.” Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC) [reply] “It may be connected, although the date given is years after his purported marriage, to a baffling, and needless to say, unsupported claim under ‘Trivia’ on Wyngarde’s IMDb entry that “He had one child — born in 1977.” “Dolmance (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I responded as follows:-

“I would assume that at least one of the regular contributors to this biog will have read ‘Peter Wyngarde: A Life Amongst Strangers'(?). On Page 381, with regard to the claim by the author that she and Wyngarde had discussed having a baby and buying a villa in Greece. Wyngarde is speaking. He lists a series of names for their child: “Here is a list of possibilities. Remember, he’ll be called by his Christian name more times than he will his surname – unless he’s in the Army – so we must call them out loudly and listen to how they sound. Here goes: Jason (my favourite), Justin, Jake, Togan, Sab or Seb, Jasper, Jonathan, Titus, Dugdale, Colwyn, Clayton, Vivyan (the male equivalent of my Vivien Leigh). One of these is what I’d like to call my next son.” How did you miss that?” TheWoolpack (Talk) 19:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

I immediately regretted posting the above statement, not least because I envisaged this collection of busybodies attempting to track down Wyngarde’s son and dragging him, kicking and screaming, into the limelight whether he desired to be there or not!

“The only reek seems to be he (sic) great smell of sockpuppetry.” Theheartof (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

“Is labelling someone a “sockpuppet” how you self justify any sort of descent or challenge to what you post on here? From the little experience I’ve had of Wikipedia, it would appear to be something of a closed shop and that if potential contributors (to this bio at least!) aren’t willing to nod wildly in agreement with everything you say then they’re either accused of deception or vetoed. In view of this, might I remind you of W.P.’s own guidelines:-“Assume good faith” and “Be welcoming to newcomers” Is it any wonder that W.P. has such an atrocious reputation?” TheWoolpack (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

So having had the door slammed in my face twice already for daring to question the misinformation touted by Wikipedia about Wyngarde over the years, I now found myself accused of dishonesty by someone who doesn’t know me from Adam but who, rather hypocritically, had just spent several minutes attempting to absolve W.P. contributors like his/herself of their own sharp practices! And if this wasn’t enough of an affront, out of the blue, and without any kind of provocation or suggestion, I was approached by someone sporting the username ‘ColinProbert’, who made the following enquiry…

When I made inquiries of various friends and family members, I was reliably informed that “Are you handy?” is an old pick-up line oft used by gay men when importuning (“cottaging”[4]) back in the days when homosexuality was illegal in the United Kingdom[5]. In the 67+ years I’ve been on this planet, I have never once been propositioned in such a way and to be perfectly honest, I found the approach (on no less than a public forum) nothing short of nauseating. I was beginning to wonder what in the name of God I’d stumbled into with this Wikipedia thing. It was completely and utterly bizarre.

As was my right under Wikipedia ‘law’, I brought these two matters to the attention of one of the ‘Administrators’ who, basically, volunteer to police the W.P. website; act as arbiters and, when disputes arise, employ their powers to remove any offending material. I explained to him/her that, as someone new to Wikipedia, ‘Theheartof’s’ lack of “good faith” and allegation of “Sockpuppetry” had made me feel unwelcome, and regardless of ‘ColinProbert’s’ personal sexual orientation, his uninvited approach had genuinely turned my stomach. As it happened, the ‘Admin’ agreed that ‘Theheartof’s’ assertion was wholly unjustified and entirely groundless, and since “soliciting for sex on Wikipedia is forbidden” (who’d ‘ave thought?!?), both of these crass posts were removed forthwith.

Like the ashen faced thrill seeker who emerges from a shark cage after facing off a Great White, I’m relieved that my one and only dalliance with Wikipedia is over. As far as the inner circle behind the Peter Wyngarde biography is concerned, I can’t say I wasn’t warned…

Suddenly It all becomes clear…

Above Right: Gavin Gaughan had trolled the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society throughout 2014 by repeatedly posting this threadbare “Are you handy?” slogan on their Facebook page. These are his attempts in 2021 to regain entry to the Society’s Facebook group page, in spite of him being wholly unwelcome there. Undeterred, Gaughan continued to harass the Appreciation Society in early 2022 (see below).

My grateful and sincere thanks to Pam of the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society for providing these screengrabs. Austin Makinson

A bit of trivia... Even after being called out by the public following the publication of The Guardian ‘obituary’, Gaughan still had the brass neck to approach Thomas Bowington, Peter Wyngarde’s agent and friend of almost 15 years, to request his assistance in writing a book about the actor. Mr Bowington said, quite wisely it would seem: “I’d have rather placed Peter’s legacy into the hands of Old Nick than in Gavin Gaughan’s!”

Notes: [1]. Peter Wyngarde’s soulmate of 30 years. Secretary of the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society, 1991 to present day. Admin of this website and of the associated Facebook group. Author of, ‘Peter Wyngarde: A Life Amongst Strangers’ (Austin-Macaulay, 2020). [2]. British national newspaper formally known as The Daily Mirror. [3]. On Wikipedia, “vandalism”is the editing of an article in an intentionally disruptive or malicious manner. [4]. “Cottaging” is a gay slang term, originating from the United Kingdom, referring to anonymous sex between men in a public lavatory. [5]. The Sexual Offences Act 1967 is an act of parliament in the United Kingdom (citation 1967 c. 60). It legalised homosexual acts in England and Wales on the condition that they were consensual, in private and between two men who had attained the age of 21. [6]. After being castigated both by the public and members of the film, television and theatre community for the hatchet job he’d done on his Peter Wyngarde ‘obituary’, Mr Gaughan ostensively went to ground, only remerging in August 2021 to revive his infantile campaign of harrassment against the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society. In May 2022, after being barred from the Society for eight years, Mr Gaughan twice attempted to gain entry to the group’s Facebook page – repeatedly using the line, “Are you handy?” Mr Gaughan was dismissed by The Guardian newspaper in April 2018 after Obituary’s Editor, Richard White, learned of the extent of his harrassment of the Appreciation Society. Mr White wrote the following:- “The circumstances that you detail in your email certainly sound disturbing, and I’m sorry for your distress. Up to the appearance of the piece, we had found Gaughan to be a dependable, occasional contributor. However, we immediately appreciated the need to present a better picture [of Peter Wyngarde], so I asked Tony Hadoke to provide a replacement. Gaughan isn’t among the writers who we’d now think of turning to. We would much rather have published a piece that no-one would consider unfair. We are not planning to ask Gaughan for any further pieces, and I cannot foresee any situation in which he would write for us again”

With thanks to Tina Wyngarde-Hopkins for supplying a copy of the above email.

Click below for more about Wikipedia misinformation about Peter Wyngarde…

• Part 1 Broadcast: Tuesday, 17th January 1984
• Part 2 Broadcast: Wednesday 18th January 1984
• Part 3 Broadcast: Thursday, 19th January 1984

Character: Sir Charles Marchington QC

Crown Court was a British television courtroom drama series that was produced by Granada Television – part of the Independent Television (ITV) network. The first of 300 episodes[1] was broadcast in 1972, and ran until 1984.  

Typically, a ‘case’ would be played out over the course of three 25 minute episodes, shown over as many afternoons. The court was set in the fictional town of Fulchester. 

While the main characters were played by actors, the jury was made up by members of the public chosen from the Electoral Register. It was this group of people that would decide whether the character on trial was guilty or not guilty.  

Notes: [1]. ‘The Son Of His Father’ was episode 290.

The Story

The episode opens at Fulchester Crown Court. The defendant – a young woman by the name of Mary Ginsel (Carol Frazer) – is accused of blackmailing a prominent MP, Sir Roland Richardson (Gerald Flood), who she claims is the father of her 3-year-old son, Gavin.

Sir Roland is the first to take to the witness stand, where he is questioned by Prosecution lawyer, Sir Charles Marchington QC (Peter Wyngarde), who enquires as to the nature of the relationship he’d with Ms Ginsel.

The elderly Lord explains that he and the young woman share an interest in stamp collecting – indeed, he had once been chairman of the Fulchester Philately Society, which is where he’d met Ms Ginsel. Latterly, she had acted as his advocate when bidding for rare stamps at auction.

Sir Roland admits to visiting the young woman at her home on several occasions, which he describes as a modest flat 15 miles from where he himself lived. There he had met the child, Gavin, and also one-time musician and photocopier salesman, Lee Sinclair – a friend of Ms Ginsel.

Despite receiving a number of rather familiar letters from Ginsel over the course of many months, including a somewhat accusatory note demanding the sum of £200 for the care of young Gavin, Sir Roland vehemently denies that his relationship with the young woman had been anything other than businesslike. He categorically denied that he was child’s father.

When Sir Charles completes his examination of the MP, Ms Ginsel’s defence lawyer – Eloise Hunter QC (Roselie Crutchley) – takes to the floor and immediately makes the charge that Sir Roland is the child’s father that in actual fact, he had been in an long-term, intimate relationship with the boy’s mother. She further contends that he had merely been using their mutual interest in stamp collecting as a foil; the fact that he hadn’t told his wife about Ms Ginsel’s numerous letters only confirmed this.

The next witness to take the stand is Jean Tomson – a middle-aged widow who lives in the same block of flats as Ms Ginsel. Sir Charles learns during his questioning that she had been a friend of the younger woman but that the two had recently fallen out. She insists that Ginsel and Lee Sinclair had been co-habiting for some time, saying that he was at the defendant’s flat “all the time”. She makes mention of an incident some months earlier when she’d seen Sinclair sitting on the stairs, crying, and that Ginsel was attempting to comfort him.

When cross-examined by The Defence, Mrs Tomson is obliged to reveal that she herself had been involved with Lee Sinclair, which prompts the accusation that she is in fact jealous of Ginsel and that her agreeing to act as a witness for the Prosecution had come out of malice. Tomson refutes this.

Following Sir Roland’s resignation from the Philately Society teacher, Leonard Alldis (John Quentin), had taken over as Treasurer. He is next to step into the witness box.

Left: Peter as Sir Charles Marchington QC

He tells Sir Charles Marchington that it had been common knowledge within Society circles that Lee Sinclair was the father of Mary’s baby, as she herself had told anyone who cared to listen. However, the court is stunned to learn that Ginsel had been pregnant, not once but twice. It was when she began to attend group meetings that Mr Alldis himself had gone to her home to check on her as he and other members of the Society were concerned about her. At that time, she’d told Alldis that Sir Roland was the father of the child she was expecting – claiming that he’d seduced her and then left her to fend for herself. As a long-time acquaintance of the MP, Allis had found this difficult to believe.

When the teacher had next seen Mary, she was no longer pregnant. He was described her as “hysterical” and that she’d claimed that the whole thing had been a “mistake”.

Mr Alldis latterly admits to Elois Hunter during her cross-examination, that there had been rumours about Mary and Sir Roland circulating amongst members of the philately group for months before he resigned.

The next witness to be called to the stand is Alisdair Miller (Andrew Downie) – editor of the Fulchester Recorder newspaper. He remembers receiving a letter from Mary Ginsel accusing Sir Roland of failing to send maintenance payments for her son. However, instead of publishing the note Miller, who had been a good friend of the MP for around 15 years, called Sir Roland to inform him of it’s receipt. Some days later, Mary had called the newspaper office to ask for the letter back, as she wished to retract her allegation.

When asked by Sir Charles whether he had believed the contents of the letter, Miller said he did not: “It was not Roland’s style,” he replied.

At last, Mary Ginsel takes the stand. She confirms to Sir Charles that she is presently unemployed, but that she had previously worked as both a librarian and supply teacher. She had no criminal record.

She immediately refuted Sir Roland’s claim that it was she who had invited him to visit her home. In fact, she says, it had been very much the other way around; he had often turned up, uninvited. Beyond their shared interest in stamps, she had nothing in common with the older man and confesses that she didn’t really like him.

On either the second or third visit to the flat, she reveals, the MP had “made a pass” at her, and in spite of finding him creepy, she had gone to bed with him nonetheless. This had happened several times thereafter. Until then, she claimed, she’d had had no experience with men.

It was around the same time that she’d first met Sir Roland that Lee Sinclair had come into her life, and although they had become close, she denied having a sexual relationship with him. She did, however, admit that she’d told members of the Philately Society that he was the father of her son.

Ms Ginsel goes on to tell the court that, suddenly and without warning Sir Roland, who had agreed to forward her £200 in cash each month for the care of their child, stopped visiting and reneged on his promise concerning the maintenance money. Soon after she had lost her job at the library; she was destitute. Understandably, she was both desperate and angry – that is why she had sent the letters both to Sir Roland and the newspaper.

Sir Charles begins his cross-examination of Mary Ginsel by reading aloud the letter she had sent to Sir Roland Richardson – emphasising the section in which she’d threatened to contact the Fulchester Recorder should he fail to send her the £200 she insisted he owed her.

Sir Charles points out that she was not merely “requesting” for the payment but was, in fact, making threats to expose the MP and ruin his family life. If the young woman was so resolute in her arraignment of Sir Roland, why had she not simply instigated a Affiliation Proceeding against him so that there would’ve been no need for the letters? She was to cite a lack of money and the fact that she had not wanted to cause problems for Sir Roland.

Although she would claim to be destitute, she admitted under incessant questioning by Sir Charles, that she had not only been claiming Social Security benefits since losing her job at the library, but that the local authority had also been paying her rent. Additionally, Lee Sinclair who, she admitted had stayed with her between 5 and 10 times over a 6 month period, had also been giving her money.

The final witness to face Sir Charles’ questions is Lee Sinclair (Bill Nigh), who confirms to the court Ginsel’s story concerning the nature of their relationship, and that she had been there for him after he’d suffered a breakdown. Although he admits to staying at her flat on many occasions, he insists that he was not living there on a permanent basis as Jean Tomson had claimed.

He is also to confess that the medication he had been taking for his condition at the time had rendered him impotent, so he could not possibly be the father of Ms Ginsel’s child. Nonetheless, he had agreed to go along with her story that he was Gavin’s dad.

The Judge – Mr Justice Hamond (Donald Eccles) – directs the jury in his summing up that they must now decide whether Mary Ginsel is guilty of maliciously using threats to obtain money from Sir Roland or had merely been asking the father of her child’s for a payment she was entitled to.

When the jury return to the court room, the Foreman is asked to stand and give the verdict: NOT GUILTY.

Ms Ginsel is free to go.

A film or television tie-in can not only give you the story of the movie, it can give an additional amount of description to fill in of some of the blanks, and help flesh out the characters.

Here are some of the novels that have either inspired film in which Peter appeared, or are direct tie-ins. As you will see, there are often quite a number of differences between the two which have been highlighted.

Film The Siege of Sidney Street

The real life event of 1911 are transformed into a tale of a devoted police officer who becomes part of a love triangle with a gangster and his girlfriend, and the gang of Russian anarchists that rob and murder – not for self, but for the ideology that drives them on.

A good proportion of the novel is devoted to Mannering’s investigation around the social club where the Russian immigrants meet. His enquiries lead him to talk with the landlord of the pub opposite the club who tells the detective: “It’s a club alright! God, you can hear them jabbering’ away – fifty to the dozen – right down the perishing street. Club they calls it! Whore house more like! God, you should hear them. I’ll tell you something else too. All they drinks there is tea. Tea. Round here folks say as they’re vegetarians.“

“Perhaps they don’t like meat, that’s all,” says the detective.

“Meat?” replies the landlord “Who said anything about meat? Vegetarians, that’s what I said. That or them anarchists. Wouldn’t be surprised to hear they was atheists too. Tell you, that club’s got a bit of a name round this district, sir.“

Vegetarians! And atheists to boot! How brilliant is that?

Taken from the back of the book: ‘The Day Anarchy Clutched At London. London’s East End – January 3rd 1911. Bullets whine in Sidney Street, holding back hundreds of police, guardsmen and the Home Secretary – Winston Churchill. Three anarchist fanatics – Peter the Painter, Yoska, Svaars – had robbed and killed for their cause. Now had come the bloody day of reckoning… Here is a sensational story with a scaffolding of truth – of the gaslit, gin-soaked era when marauding anarchists took whatever they could grab.’

The Differences:

• The book tells us that Peter Piatkow (A.K.A. Peter the Painter) is a pipe smoker, having taken to smoking to appear “more English”.
• After leaving Russia, Peter had intended to go to Paris, but due to the political jostling there, he chose London instead.
• On his arrival in England, Peter had first lived in the Hyde Park area of London, before taking rooms in the East End.
• His first love had been Nina, played by Angela Newman in the film, and had considered proposing marriage to her.
• Sara (Nicole Berger in the film), is said to have had many lovers but had never been in love until meeting Peter.
• The book describes Peter as loving as he lived – for the accusation of a prize: “His lovemaking was almost harsh, burning up like magnesium.” He encourages Sara to resist him so that he might eventually “conquer” her.
• In the book, Sara, dies without knowing that Peter has escaped the fire in the house on Sidney Street, but in the film, she lives to see him make his escape.

Film Turn of the Screw and The Innocents

Author, Henry James, once said that ‘The Turn of the Screw’ began as a “shadow of a shadow.” In 1895, a story was told to him by the Archbishop of Canterbury about “a couple of small children in an out-of-the-way place, to whom the spirits of certain ‘bad’ servants, dead in the employ of the house, were believed to have appeared with the design of ‘getting hold’ of them.” Three years later, the 1st chapter of ‘The Turn of the Screw’ was published in an American magazine entitled, Collier’s Weekly. In 1950, the characters of Peter Quint and Miss Jessel appeared in another form in William Archibald’s play, The Innocents. Four years later, the two servants would be resurrected again in Benjamin Britten’s opera, but perhaps their most well-know incarnation would be in Jack Clayton’s classic 1961 film – also called The Innocents, in which Peter Wyngarde was to play the evil spectre, Peter Quint.

On the surface, the plot of the film is relatively simple. A governess (Deborah Kerr) is employed to care for two young children named Flora (Pamela Franklin) and Miles (Martin Stephens) at a lonely manor house called Bly. She begins seeing the ghosts of the former governess Miss Jessel (Clytie Jessop) and valet, Peter Quint. According to housekeeper, Miss Grose (Megs Jenkins), the two had been having a sordid affair under the noses of the children (it is implied that they had been witnessed by Miles and Flora having sex in front of the fire in the drawing room). Miss Giddens becomes convinced that the children are in some way in touch with the ghosts, so her mission is now to rescue them from the spirits influence by getting them to admit that they are haunted by Miss Jessel and Peter Quint.

The Differences:

• The differences between the film and the novel can be summed up this way: The Turn of the Screw is a complex psychological drama that features ghosts. – The Innocents – A ghost/haunted house story with psychological underpinnings.
• The Turn of the Screw begins with a group of friends who are gathered on Christmas Eve night to listen as someone recites a ghost story. The film, however, opens with a young governess visiting the office of her well-to-do employer in, we presume, London.
• In the book, the governess remains unnamed throughout the story, but in the film she’s given the name, Miss Giddens.
• The spectre of both Miss Jessel and Peter Quint are omnipresent throughout the book, but only appear occasionally in the film.
• When the governess sees either Jessel or Quint, but the other characters claim not to see them, the ghosts are on screen. From the camera’s perspective, the ghosts are there – they exist, and the other characters, in denying their presence, could well be seeing them but lying about it. In the book, however, the text presents the governess’s in such a way that there is evidence both for and against her. Without the vindication of her own narrative, her paranoia and perceptible anxiety, in addition to her tendency to jump to complex conclusions, become increasingly obvious. Otherwise, the film plays up the children’s peculiarities enough so that her conjecture that they’re possessed could be possible. The behaviour of them while at play, could be seen as malicious.
• The most significant way in which the film preserves book’s ambivalence is in the way it visually projects the subtext of the governess’s mental or emotional attitudes towards sex. Director, Freddie Francis, skillfully preserves the novella’s subtlety concerning this facet of the story. That said, it’s clear that there is something questionable about Miles, not least when he passionately kisses the adult governess.
• Miss Gidden’s discusses her family in both in the book and in the film; mentioning that her father is a stern church minister. Her family home, where she had lived until moving to Bly, she describes as being small – certainly “too small for secrets.”
• The nature of Quint and Jessel’s supposed malevolency is never fully defined, either in the book or the film. Henry James wrote in the preface to the New York Edition of the story in 1908: “What, in the last analysis, had I to give the sense of? Of their being, the haunting pair, capable, as the phrase is, of everything – that is of exerting, in respect to the children, the very worst action small victims so conditioned might be conceived as subject to.” Only make the reader’s general vision of evil intense enough . . . and his own experience, his own imagination, his own sympathy (with the children) and horror (of the false friends) will supply him quite sufficiently with all the particulars. Make him think the evil, make him think it for himself, and you are released from weak specifications.” This is exactly what happens to the reader of The Turn of the Screw, and it is also, in a sense, the experience of the governess, who thinks the evil for herself with an imaginative ferocity that becomes, over a long country summer, a malignity of its own.
• To a extraordinary degree The Innocents succeeds in replicating on the screen the author’s play of perception: it makes us – the viewer – question what we see, and amplify what we imagine. The film is in black and white, which has always been an excellent medium for a ghost story. CinemaScope also leaves a lot of empty space for us to fill with dark conclusions and images, which is just what the author wanted. Most ghost stories are claustrophobic. The Turn of the Screw is meant to grow in the fearful minds of its audience. It does so in both the film and the book.
• In the final scene in which Miles dies in Miss Gidden’s arms: This takes place in the house itself in the book, but in the film, the piece is played out in the garden with what appears to be the figure of Peter Quint standing amongst the statues.

Click below for more about The Innocents…

Film Conjure Wife and Night of the Eagle/Burn, Witch, Burn

While Fritz Lieber’s Conjure Wife was not a film tie-in; it was, in fact, written in 1943 – almost 20 years prior to the release of Night of the Eagle/Burn, Witch, Burn – it was reissued in 1962 in the USA with a cover featuring a representation of Peter and his screen wife, Janet Blair.

Conjure Wife was first published (in a shorter form) in ‘Unknown’ magazine and as a single book 10 years later in 1953. The setting for the novel was New England, USA, while this was changed to rural England.

It does – as he steps into his wife’s dressing room on a whimsy and goes randomly through her drawers, and discovers that she is a witch.

What makes the story works so well, in addition to smooth writing and engaging characters, is Leiber’s careful management of Norman’s attitude. He’s forced to weigh whether magic really exists, or the events of the story are complex and unconscious psychological constructs. Reason pushes him one way, while the need to save his beloved wife pushes in another.

Leiber’s plots are always unique and this short novel is no exception. Norman Saylor and his beautiful young wife Tansy are residents of a small academic township in America, in whose college Norman is a professor. He is unconventional and disliked by the college’s conservative intelligentsia, but has still somehow managed to climb to the top: Tansy, looked down upon by the professors’ prim wives, has also managed to survive and become quite popular. Norman is happy about it, a bit too pleased with himself, one can say – we meet him at the beginning of the novel in a moment of perfect contentment which feels too good to be real, and which he feels must pass, as such moments are too good to last.

The Differences:

• In the novel, Norman’s surname is ‘Saylor’, while in the film, he is ‘Taylor’.
• Norman discovers that his wife is a witch within the opening to pages of the book, while in Night of the Eagle (by sneaking a look around her “dressing room” [read walk-in wardrobe] while she’s out of the house). In the film, however, it’s later on – after the game of Bridge with his colleagues from the college.
• For the script of Night of the Eagle, Richard Matheson and Charles Beaumont strip back the more Leiber’s book which, for many, was much to the film’s advantage. In the book, ALL of the college wives are engaged in witchcraft, whereas in the film only Flora Carr (Margaret Johnson) and Tansy Taylor are.
• Having been written in 1943, Norman Saylor’s language, thoughts and opinions concerning woman are of that age. By 1962, Norman Taylor are, thankfully, updated.
• The inanimate stone gargoyles of Hempnell Collage, New England, become the animated stone eagle of Hempnell, UK, in the film.
• Further stripping by Matheson, Beaumont and director Sidney Hayers a level that was not in the Fritz Leiber story and tell Night of the Eagle as a psychological horror story not unrelated to the work of producer Val Lewton in the 1940s, such as Cat People, I Walked Like A Zombie and The Seventh Victim.

Click below for more about Night of the Eagle/Burn, Witch, Burn…

Film Flash Gordon

Ming the Merciless! He rules the planet Mongo with cold terror – and if he has his Imperial way, will conquer the entire universe! But first the king of Mongo must destroy Flash Gordon, the fair-haired earthling and Superbowl star, destined to challenge his sinister forces… together with Doctor Zarkov and the beautiful Dale Arden, Flash is sent hurdling through interstellar space to the Towers of Mingo City, the heartless armies of the all-seeing secret police, and the deadly creatures and half-human beings lurking in Ming’s lair. There, the space hero has a triple-task: survive Ming’s onslaught, free his own friends, and save – billions of light years away – the planet Earth!

The Differences:

• In there book there are several ‘Interludes’ in which the reader is updated on what effect Ming’s attack is having on the earth.
• During the first meeting of the Earthling’s with Ming in the great hall of the palace, the Emperor is said to be displeased with the conduct of the Minister of Propaganda and wishes him to be executed. It is Klytus that speaks up on the elderly Minister behalf – reminding Ming that, “Until now, he has performed his duties well.” The Emperor yields and allows the old man to live.
• Klytus is described in the novel as being approximately 5 feet, five inches tall.
• In the film, Klytus wears a powerful ring that he uses to remove the metal helmet Flash Gordon is forced to wear in the Palace dungeon. In the book, however, the General has a small gadget which he keeps in a pocket in his robes.
• While the film leads us to believe that Klytus and General Kala are and ‘item’, the book says otherwise; that they are in fact rivals.
• We learn from the book that Dale Arden is a black belt in Karate.
• The book tells us that Klytus had been seriously injured while attempting to increase his intelligence using the same Mind Altering Probe used to empty Dr. Zarkov’s mind. His face and right arm had been badly burned, which resulted in him having to wear the mask and metal plating to his arm.
• Klytus’s “sexual drives” are said to have been increased as a result of the incident with the Mind Altering Probe.
• We learn that Ming has other children aside from Princess Aura. She, as the oldest, is in line to take over from her father upon his death.

Click below for more about Flash Gordon…

TV Jason King

During the height of ‘Jasonmania’ back in 1972, Pan Books published two novels by Robert Miall entitled ‘Jason King’ and ‘Kill Jason King!’ – both of which were described on their covers as being “Based upon the successful ATV television series starring Peter Wyngarde“, and which were basically re-writes of a selection of four episodes from the series.

The first of the duo, ‘Jason King’, follows the exploits of the inimitable scribe as he adopts the guise of Vershinin Miklos – a Bulgarian master crook, who is sent undercover by Whitehall in an attempt to infiltrate an international crime syndicate who have successfully eluded the watchful eye of Scotland Yard with their computer wizardry.

Having been blackmailed by Rylans with the threat of being turned over to Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes, Jason makes the most of the situation by eating, drinking and making merry with Jan, one of the gang’s female companions.

The story deviates only slightly from the original which was penned by Tony Williamson for the episode. ‘A Deadly Line in Digits’, and seems to flow quite naturally into a somewhat raunchier version if, ‘Chapter One: The Company I Keep’, in which we find our hero believing that he’s developed the powers of ESP overnight when, in fact, he has merely been set up by the beautiful yet deadly Countessa Arabella do Maggiore.

In Maill’s rendition of Donald James’ original screenplay, there are a number of minor adjustments – most noticeably, the absence of the rutting rhino in the opening ‘scene’ and, sadly, there’s no nuns habit. But Jason certainly makes up for their absence by his antics with the Contessa, which are only touched upon superficially on screen, but leave little to the imagination in print!

The second of the two books, ‘Kill Jason King!’, encompasses the episodes ‘As Easy As A.B.C.’ by Tony Williamson, and ‘A Red. Red Rose Forever’ by Donald James; the latter of which quite outshines the former, which as I am sure anyone who had seen the live-action story on screen will testify.

In the first segment of the book, Jason finds himself the prime suspect following a series of crimes which have in fact been perpetrated by two upper-crust villains by the names of Charles and Edward, who have taken to recreating incidents as described in Jason’s Mark Caine novels.

Matters take a drastic turn for the worst when a security guard is shot and killed during the course of one of the robberies, and a considerable fortune in platinum bullion mysteriously turns up in the boot of Jason’s car. All hope appears lost when Arlene – Jason’s beautiful bedtime companion (and only alibi!), is kidnapped by the two bounders, leaning poor J.K. with little hope of proving his innocence.

The unlikely combination of Adolf Hitler, a Swiss Bank vault and a pretty air hostess lead to yet more intrigue, adventure and romance for Jason who, as always, manages to outwit the bad guys and get the girl!

It was a very good year for villains...
a good year for blondes, diamonds and furs in London...
for brunettes, orgies, blackmail and murder in Rome...
for redheads in St Moritz. 
A bad year for Department S - until his past caught up with Jason King.

The security guard was cold. Cold as the Vienna morgue where he lay. Arlene, blonde and sultry, had been kidnapped. A fortune in platinum filled the car boot. The latest haul in a series of daring robberies that stretched from Munich to Barcelona. And Jason King found himself Europe’s number one police suspect. The only suspect…

Both titles were best sellers in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada.

Click below for more information on Jason King…

TV Doctor Who

The Doctor is enjoying the sun on a holiday island – but things are soon hotter than he bargained for.

The young American Perpugilliam Brown brings to the TARDIS a mysterious object that her archaeologist step-father has found in a sunken wreck. Kamelion, the Doctor’s robot friend of a thousand disguises, reacts to the object totally unexpectedly, with bewildering consequences for the TARDIS crew.

For Kamelion sends the Doctor and his friends to Sarn, a terrifyingly beautiful planet of fire. This strange world provides the key to Turlough’s secret past — and once again the Doctor is pitted against the wily Master.

The Differences:

• The description of Sarn and the site of Howard’s dig is clearly in Greece or Cyprus rather than in the Canary Islands.
• The Chief Elder, Timanov (Peter Wyngarde) is described in the book as being around 70-years old, while in the episodes he is said to be “As old as the mountain itself”.
• In the book, Timanov is portrayed to be far more understanding of his younger charges and less fanatical.

Click below for more on Doctor Who: Planet of Fire

Presented by Duncan C. Weldon and Triumph Apollo Productions Ltd.

December 1985

Character: The Sheriff of Nottingham

The Panto Scene-By-Scene

Act I Opens in the grounds of Nottingham Castle, where the orphaned Colin and Mary – ‘The Babes’ of the title (Amber Jane Raab & Corinna Reardon or Joanne Smith & Amber Finlan), arrive to meet their uncle and new Ward, The Sherriff (Peter Wyngarde) who, like all good Panto villains, is up to no good.

Although he was at first deeply inconvenienced at being left his brother’s children to care for, The Sherriff and his two henchmen, Spike Head (Spike Milligan) and Billy Blunt (Bill Pertwee) soon realise that they could actually be quite useful to them in carrying out their evil machinations.

Over at Sherwood School, Nurse Goodbody (Patrick Cargill) believes that she has Colin and Mary under her control… until two new pupils arrive in the form of robbers, Spike and Billy.

Back in the nursery, Freddie the Jester (Ken Goodwin) is telling the two children a story before bedtime, but poor Nurse Goodbody has the devil’s own job in getting them to take their medicine. Eventually ‘though, the children drift off to sleep, and it’s then that Spike and Billy break into the nursery to steal The Babes and take them to Sherwood Forrest. But as fate would have it, Fairy Christabel (Evelyn Laye) is on hand to save them. With the help of the Spirits of the Forest, she takes them to a safe haven.

Act II. Back at Nottingham Castle, Nurse Goodbody confronts The Sherriff, and a fight ensues between the two of them involving a basket of fish!

Meanwhile in Sherwood Forest, Maid Marion (Susie Blake) brings Robin Hood (Deirdre Forrest) the news that he and his Merrie Men must find and rescue the children before The Sherriff and his henchmen are able to carry out their evil plan.

While Little John (Simon Brotherhood), Friar Tuck (Ralph Meanley), Will Scarlet (Jeremy Rose) and Much the Miller (David Capri) are searching for The Babes, Robin and Nurse Goodbody happen upon something creepy – cue the obligatory “He’s behind you!” scene. (“Oh no he isn’t” etc.)

Back at the Castle, however, The Sherriff already has the children in his power, and forces Freddie the Jester to give away a vital secret. Nevertheless, as is usually the case with such stories, good inevitably triumphs over bad, and everyone – except The Sherriff and the two Robbers presumably – live happily ever after.

Above: A rare survivor from the show is this paper mask that came as a wraparound gift on the front of the programme.

In Retrospect

Something old, something news, something borrowed but never blue – that was the philosophy of Jimmy Perry’s[1] lavish production of ‘Babes in the Wood’ at the Richmond Theatre. It, of course, had all the ingredients that has made the Pantomime a staple of the British stage since the 16th Century.

Panto is often scoffed at by theatre snobs, but it is often the case that this Christmas and New Year perennial is the first taste of the stage that many people in the UK have. Certainly, many of our greatest actors have confessed to having gained their love of live theatre as a result of being taken to a pantomime either by a parent or school. And, of course, it’s the not-so-humble panto that has helped many small provincial theatres survive, often because the majority of their revenue is created over the Christmas period.

As a local to Richmond, it was only natural that Jimmy Perry should both direct and write the script. By the mid-1980s, his connection to theatre stretched back over 30 years. As a young actor, he’d been a member of the Repertory Company under the Direction of Alan Miles and Freddie Piffard. It was also something of a nostalgic return for Peter who had also been a member of the same company, but much later than Perry.

This would be the 15^th panto that he would create in his career, and with such an illustrious cast to do it justice, it was a certainty that it would give the packed houses two-and-a-half hours of fun.

Fun Facts

• Peter appeared as the Sherriff in all 76 performances of the show.
• His first pantomime appearance was in ‘Aladdin’ at His Majesty’s Theatre, Aberdeen, over Christmas and New Year 1984/85, playing the wicked Abanaza. It was there that Producer, Duncan Weldon, had seen him and asked him to appear in this star-studded as the equally wicked Sherriff of Nottingham.
• As was his way, Peter re-wrote several pieces of his character’s dialogue, one of which included a reference to Jason King.

Notes: [1]. Jimmy Perry wrote numerous classic British TV comedies during his career, including: ‘It Ain’t Half Hot Mum’, ‘Hi-De-Hi’ and ‘Dad’s Army’.