I appreciate that filmmakers repeatedly find ways to attach Peter Lorre's characters very closely to characters that are noticably taller and/or ganglier than he is. Whether they have romantic tension or just seem like they're great friends/colleagues, there's a sort of bonded pair [or trio] vibe they give off that I live for.
Among the Meghan-hating media fraternity, Jeremy Clarkson isn’t even king
Catherine Bennett
The invective of the former Top Gear presenter barely rose above the standard of an average incel
Sat 31 Dec 2022 18.00 GMT
Follow Catherine Bennett
Commiserations to Jeremy Clarkson: now his Sun column has been taken down, the celebrity must forfeit his chance to win the UK media’s most demented attack on Meghan award, 2022.
Fairness requires his article to be available for comparison with work from names including, in no particular order, Dan Wootton, Piers Morgan, Nigel Farage, Tom Bower, Brendan O’Neill of spiked and the Spectator’s Freddy Gray, not forgetting Richard Tice, Toby Young and Rod Liddle. Energised, perhaps, by the abundant material issuing from Montecito, more and more commentators are realising that a media career really can be based on, or refreshed by, repeating that the Duchess of Sussex is any or all of a talentless (yet cunning) mansion-dwelling liar, narcissist, bully, gold-digger, hypocrite and republic facilitator who stole “our” prince (Morgan: “dragged him out of the country off to your California mansion to fleece your royal titles”) whom she will dump – thanks to the demagogue-psychic Farage for this insight – when the time is right. To which the popular psychologist Dr Jordan Peterson tweeted: “This seems highly probable to me.”
Having said that, the trade is harder than it might look; the successful Markle-detractor must not only sustain Morgan-rivalling levels of abuse but produce some signature excuse for his feelings. An honourable mention, then, to Peterson who, new to the specialism, brought a scholarly perspective to bear on a Markle “archetype” podcast in which he’d been quoted (saying “I don’t think that men can control crazy women”). While compliant with Goldwater constraints on psychological speculation, Peterson added to his academic defence of “crazy women” the objection that Markle’s voice “just grates on me”. Elsewhere, the recently arrested career misogynist Andrew Tate seems to be the first of this men’s group to call her a bitch and worse. Why the anger? Unclear, but, invited on Morgan’s show, Tate recently regretted that “a lot of age-old traditions are being destroyed in real time”.
The above list should not, incidentally, be interpreted as some innate female inferiority in reviling Meghan. Credit is due, in fact, to the Daily Telegraph’s female team. The judges of this award are not, however, so “woke” as to favour less obsessive and comparatively pallid contributions to Meghan-hating by women, simply for the sake of diversity.
One challenge for specialist Markle-baiters is to balance, as Clarkson did not, the disturbed with the publishable
If it is any consolation to Clarkson, last year’s anti-Meghan content included work so outstandingly malignant that even after his article provoked international condemnation and record-breaking complaints, he may not have triumphed. True, the description of Meghan as worse than the serial killer Rose West is memorable, likewise his dream of the day that Meghan – since the writer hates her “on a cellular level” – “is made to parade naked through the streets of every town in Britain while the crowds chant, ‘Shame!’ and throw lumps of excrement at her”. But original? Our judges noted that this sort of sexualised, unashamedly pathological fantasy about a determined and attractive woman would probably be considered fairly basic in online groups favoured by resentful incels.
Moreover, one of the challenges for specialist Markle-baiters is to balance, as Clarkson did not, the disturbed with the publishable. As familiar as it is for some men to be triggered by female success into the sort of behaviours academics have summarised as “masculine over-compensation”, the Meghan-averse, like Greta Thunberg’s haters (as Clarkson shows, there is significant overlap), must keep in mind the need not to come across as worryingly invested or, to borrow Peterson’s jargon, crazy.
Tom Bower, a strong contender for this year’s award, could probably have pulled off his Nazi analogy, “Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propagandist, would look with real awe at what the Sussexes and Netflix have achieved”, and even his conspiratorial “Doria plays a really sinister role in this whole story”. It helped that he was speaking on a channel where Meghan hysteria is pretty much normalised. But people noticed when he told viewers of Good Morning Britain: “It’s Meghan I’m after.”
That the would-be shit-pelter Clarkson is to keep his TV shows and newspaper columns should not, as much as it has thrilled his fans, be taken to mean less eminent contributors would survive. Careful misogynists might be better advised to study the way his rivals will, for instance, elevate otherwise standard exercises in vituperation with a dash of compassion, a mention of the cost of living crisis, learned regret for Meghan’s limitations. “In a strangely lobotomised way,” Gray says of his muse, “Meghan seems to have been influenced by the theories of Carl Jung.”
Alternatively, notice how seasoned Meghan antagonists offer deep constitutional feeling as a justification for their insults and disgusted faces: “Princess Pinocchio”, “your narcissistic delusionist (sic) wife”, “the ginge”, “poisonous rats”. The guild’s settled understanding, after the Netflix series, that the Sussexes represent, in Morgan’s words, “an existential threat to the British monarchy”, allowed for some peerless abuse from lead members of the fraternity, notably in the popular Meghan-hating double acts. The aim of this collaborative format being for participants to goad one another into ever more extravagant denunciations of the Sussexes. In particular the Wootton-Bower combo reliably appals, the host nodding while the writer insists, for example (confident that Wootton won’t mention Andrew Morton), that Diana was never, like her son, “duplicitous”. Wootton (confident that Bower won’t mention Panorama), agrees that Diana never did anything so vile as criticise the institution.
To pick a winner from this wealth of invective has occasionally felt like an impossible task. But the most precious is, surely, a piece by the distinguished Marxist turned Markleist, Brendan O’Neill. Not for pyrotechnics but for so brilliantly encapsulating Meghan’s often fascinating effect on the male mind. “Go away,” he begs the belle dame of Montecito, “Leave me alone.” He made the same request in 2020.
Catherine Bennett is an Observer columnist
Alongside stiff competition from the likes of Brendan O’Neill, Jezza’s invective is little more original than the average incel’s
A rather underrated film noir, which deserves to be discussed more by Lorre fans.
As someone who mostly watches Peter Lorres films just for him, It's often difficult for me to enjoy films of his where he doesn't get a huge amount of screentime and while that does make the beginning and ending of the film drag for me just a little bit, the films mystery, the chemistry between Martin and Catherine and the love triangle between them and Catherine's husband, Kirk, keeps me too invested to sulk over Markos short screen time. Not that Lorre doesn't steal every scene he appears in of course and Markos no exception. Marko is portrayed as a dignified, suave fellow with a cool demeanour, but there's clearly some intense emotion simmering just beneath the surface
Of special mention is NBA champion, Freddie Steele as Markos main Goon, Lucky. His portrayal of a meatheaded, but devoted henchman of few words is so endearing and stands out so much for such a small role that I had no idea Steele wasn't a long time, professional actor until I looked him up after the film. He's adorable and his chemistry with Marko makes me sad that Steele and Lorre hadn't been paired up more often
I finally watched black angel and Wow! I enjoyed that film a lot!
Marco was great ofc. As I've said before, suave, serious, dignified Peter characters aren't normally my favourite, but Marco was a very good one. Plenty of Peter Lorres classic 'sitting on things that aren't for sitting/sitting on things wrong' shtick. Not to mention "Artists, how i hate them". Plus, I was a big fan of his dynamic with his bodygaurd/assistant/guy, Lucky, who was such a peach btw. I need to draw them together
Ofc I found Petes screentime a tad scarce for my tastes, but I don't really mind cause I was actually like, invested in the main characters dynamic and the films overall mystery. What a concept lol. Really though, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't routing for Catherine and Martin to get together for most of their screentime(I kinda wish her husband really was guilty ngl)
Also, I loved the doctor in the asylum being like "hmm its possible" when Martin explains that he was the killer and then just going back to trying to stick him with the needle anyway lol
