A MAN COULD GET KILLED

US, 1966. 97 minutes, Colour.
James Garner, Melina Mercouri, Sandra Dee, Anthony Franciosa, Robert Coote, Roland Culver, Gregoire Asland, Cecil Parker, Dulcie Gray, Martin Benson, Niall MacGinnis?.
Directed by Ronald Neame, Cliff Owen.

A Man Could Get Killed is an amiably forgettable caper film of the 1960s. However, while it is on screen it is very entertaining. James Garner gives his typical performance as someone investigating lost jewellery, hired by Melina Mercouri (who had made such an impact in such films as Never On Sunday and Topkapi, wife of director Jules Dassin, later a member of the Greek parliament). The supporting cast is led by Sandra Dee and has quite a number of British character actors like Robert Coote, Roland Culver, Dulcie Gray and the inimitable Cecil Parker.

The film is done in 60s style – from a script co-written by T.E.B. Clarke, British author of such films as The Lavender Hill Mob. It was directed by David Lean’s editor, Ronald Neame who had made a number of films in Britain in the 1950s including The Card and The Horse’s Mouth with Alec Guinness. Moving to the United States he made this film, Gambit with Michael Caine and Shirley MacLaine? and was soon to make The Poseidon Adventure and The Odessa File.

The best-known aspect of the film is the final credits song, ‘Strangers in the Night’, sung by Frank Sinatra.

1. A good comedy drama? A spy spoof of the sixties? Echoing the styles and impact of the sixties? Now?

2. The irony of the title and its setting the tone? The hero's reaction to deaths and his possibility of being killed? The importance of the sets, Portuguese locations, the international stars, music, etc.?

3. How important is it to spoof current genres? The quality of this film as a spoof of spy epics? The details of the plot, the types and characters, the mystery of the death, the nature of the chases, the use of care and gadgetry, the build-up towards the climax, the searches? The deadpan irony of the dialogue to highlight this?

4. The importance of the opening and its tone, Beddoes involved in a strange experience? His greater involvement, the continued build-up, his wanting to dissociate himself, everybody forcing him into a pattern? The necessity for its being sorted out? Audience involvement along with Beddoes?

5. How enjoyable was Beddoes as the hero of this kind of film? James Garner and his kind of hero? The American type, the qualities of his character, his growing involvement in the plot, his resources and resourcefulness? The possibility of his being killed? His relating to people, involvement in the chase and dangers? The build-up to the end? What kind of hero did he emerge as? Why?

6. The contrast with Aurora? Was she the heroine of the film? The Melina Mercouri type? Her grief and winking at the funeral? The quality of her life? The good-bad heroine? The vivacity of her personality? Her involvement in the plot, her grasp of the facts, participating in the adventures with Beddoes? The dangers, the exaggerated comedy of the dangers? The ending? Would she have a future with Beddoes?

7. The contrast of the farce with Steve Antonio? The American with the Portuguese pose? The professional who is not quite as good as he thinks? The chance meeting with Amy? Amy as the ingenuous American on tour? Her support of Steve an well as her disappointment? The detailed involvement of the couple? Their growing in love?

8. The film's gallery of crooks and international spies? Their visual appearance, sinister styles, following one another? Their deaths? The satire on this kind of villain?

9. The presentation of the British, the types, mocking them? The Ambassador, the public servants. the Intelligence agents? The retired doctors, etc.?

10. How enjoyable were particular incidents, their integration into the plot, their build-up towards the solution? The mock nature of searching the rice, the car chases?

11. How important were the spectacular chases? The discovery of the dead spies in the various care on the hillside? Steve . Antonio, and Amy in the fridge etc.?

12. Why are such films enjoyable? The presuppositions about heroism and human nature? Laughing at human nature and learning about it in this way?