Fantomas vs. Scotland Yard (1967)
Directed by André Hunebelle
No — Fantomas vs. Scotland Yard is not woke, scoring 6 out of 100 on our wokeness meter.
The third and final installment of André Hunebelle's Fantômas trilogy arrives as a French answer to the James Bond craze, and it answers in the key of slapstick.
Consciousness Markers
Fantômas levies a 'head tax' on the wealthy and threatens non-payers, but this is framed as villainous extortion rather than a critique of capitalism, and the heroes ultimately defend the rich.
A 1967 French production with an entirely white European cast; no diverse or inclusive casting choices are present.
No LGBTQ+ characters, themes, or subtext appear anywhere in the film.
Female characters serve as romantic interests and damsels within a conventional 1960s adventure-comedy framework, with no feminist critique.
The film engages no racial themes or commentary whatsoever.
No environmental or climate-related content exists in the film.
No body-positivity themes or messaging are present.
The film contains no exploration of neurodivergence or neurodiverse characters.
The film is a fictional caper with no historical revisionism.
As a light Bond-spoof comedy, the film makes no attempt to lecture or moralize to its audience.
Why it received this score
The third and final installment of André Hunebelle's Fantômas trilogy arrives as a French answer to the James Bond craze, and it answers in the key of slapstick. Jean Marais does double duty as the masked archvillain and the journalist Fandor, while Louis de Funès sputters through the role of Commissaire Juve with his customary apoplectic energy. The plot concerns a head tax levied on the wealthy, with threats of execution for those who decline to pay. This is the closest the film comes to a political thought, and it is careful to frame the scheme as extortion rather than economics. The rich are victims here, the castle is a trap, and the forces of order are on the side of the money. Any suggestion of class grievance is dispatched with a gadget and a laugh.
The production is a thoroughly 1967 French affair, with a European cast, a Scottish castle played by a château in the Gironde, and no interest in the representational questions that would preoccupy later decades. Women appear as romantic interests and occasional hostages, and the film asks nothing more of them. There is no racial commentary, no environmental conscience, no examination of the mind's varied wiring, and no historical argument to make. The whole enterprise is a caper, and capers have no time for sermons. The tone is light, the pacing brisk, and the moral universe reassuringly flat.
What remains is craftsmanship of a modest and agreeable kind. The disguises are clever, the chases are competent, and de Funès is permitted to do the thing he did better than anyone, which was to be annoyed at length. The film has no designs on the audience's conscience and no interest in improving anyone. It is entertainment without a thesis, and in the current climate such a thing has the quality of a relic. We are left to admire its efficiency and to note, without judgment, how completely it declines to instruct us.
Analysis generated by our Consciousness Algorithm
Synopsis
In the third and final episode of the trilogy, Fantômas imposes a head tax on the rich, threatening to kill those who do not comply.
Questions about Fantomas vs. Scotland Yard
Is Fantomas vs. Scotland Yard woke?
No — Fantomas vs. Scotland Yard is not woke, scoring 6 out of 100 on our wokeness meter. That earns it a verdict of Ultra Based.
Does Fantomas vs. Scotland Yard have any woke elements?
Very few. None of the 10 markers reaches 30, the level where a marker counts as present; the highest is Eat the Rich at 10.
How does Fantomas vs. Scotland Yard compare to other 1967 movies?
It ranks #10 of the 19 films from 1967 we've scored; their average is 10. The wokest is In the Heat of the Night (60).
Is Fantomas vs. Scotland Yard the most woke Fantomas movie?
Yes. It scores highest of the 3 Fantomas films we've scored.