"EMMA" (1972) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "EMMA", the 1972 BBC adaptation of Jane Austen's 1815 novel.  Adapted by Denis Constanduros and directed by John Glenister, the miniseries starred Doran Godwin and John Carson:

"EMMA" (1972) Photo Gallery

"The Celebration of Mediocrity and Unoriginality in "STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS"

 

"THE CELEBRATION OF MEDIOCRITY AND UNORIGINALITY IN “STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS"

Look . . . I liked the 2015 “STAR WARS” movie, “THE FORCE AWAKENS”.   I honestly do.  Well . . . I had enjoyed the movie's middle section.  Heck, I feel it is better than J.J. Abrams’ two “STAR TREK” films.  But I am astounded that this film had garnered so much acclaim. It won the AFI Award for Best Picture.  And It was nominated by the Critics Choice Award for Best Picture.

“THE FORCE AWAKENS”??? Really? It did not take long for certain fans to point out that the movie’s plot bore a strong resemblance to the first “STAR WARS” movie, 1977's “A NEW HOPE”. In fact, I am beginning to suspect that J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan had more or less plagiarized the 1977 film, along with aspects from other movies in the franchise. Worse, it has some plot holes that Abrams has managed to ineffectively explain to the media. In other words, his explanations seemed like shit in the wind and the plot holes remained obvious.

Then I found myself thinking about “THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.”, Guy Ritchie’s 2015 adaptation of the 1964-1968 television series. I will not deny that the movie had some flaws. Just about every movie I have seen throughout my life had some flaws. But instead of attempting a carbon copy of the television series, Ritchie put his own, original spin of the series for his movie. And personally, I had left the movie theater feeling impressed. And entertained. It is not that Ritchie had created a perfect movie. But he did managed to create an original one, based upon an old source. Now that was impressive.

But instead of having his movie appreciated, a good deal of the public had stayed away in droves. Warner Brothers barely publicized the film. Worse, the studio released in August, the summer movie season’s graveyard. And for those who did see the movie, they complained that it was not like the television show. Ritchie had made changes for his film. In other words, Ritchie was criticized for being original with a movie based upon an old television series.

To this day, I still find this incredibly pathetic. One director was criticized giving an original spin to his movie adaptation. Another director was hailed as the savior of a movie franchise by committing outright plagiarism. This is what Western culture has devolved into, ladies and gentlemen. We now live in a world in which the only movies that are box office hits are those that form part of a franchise. We live in a society in which glossy and mediocre shows like “DOWNTON ABBEY” are celebrated. We live in a world in which a crowd pleasing, yet standard movie biopic like “THE KING’S SPEECH” can receive more acclaim than an original film like “INCEPTION”.

In regard to culture or even pop culture, this society is rushing toward conformity, familiarity and mediocrity. God help us.

"OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" (`976) Review

 

"OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" (1976) Review

I have a curious history with the 1998 adaptation of Charles Dickens' 1864-65 novel, "Our Mutual Friend". I had a lukewarm reaction to it when I first saw it. Following two re-watches of the miniseries, I became a major fan of it. So, when I discovered there had been an earlier adaptation of the novel, I did not hesitate to watch it. My efforts to view the 1976 miniseries, "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" proved to be difficult, due more to availability reasons. But I finally managed to achieve it in the end.

Whether you are familiar with Dickens' tale or not, "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" centered around the "death" of the heir to a fortune inherited from his father, a former collector from London's rubbish. The story begins with a solicitor named Mortimer Lightwood, who narrates the circumstances of the death of his client, a former dustman named Mr. Harmon, who collected London's rubbish, to his aunt and other guests at a society dinner. The terms of Old Harmon's will stipulated that his fortune should go to his estranged son John, who had returned to Britain after years spent abroad. John can inherit his father's fortune on the condition that he marry a woman he has never met, Miss Bella Wilfer. However, a Thames River waterman named Gaffar Hexam and his daughter Lizzie discover a corpse in the river with papers identifying the latter as John Harmon. When Mortimer learns of this death, he and his close friend Eugene Wrayburn head toward the river to identify the body. These events led to the following subplots:

*John Harmon fakes his death and assumes the identity of John Rokesmith, the Boffins' social secretary, in order to ascertain Bella Wilfer's character. John had recruited a sailor to impersonate him, but the latter betrayed him by drugging and later, robbing him. However, the sailor was later betrayed by others who not only robbed him, but also murdered him. The Hexams had discovered the sailor's body.

*Old Mr. Harmon's employees, Nicodemus and Henrietta Boffin inherit the Harmon fortune and take in Bella Wilfer as a ward to compensate for her loss, following John's "death".

*Gaffer Hexam's embittered former partner, Roger "Rogue" Riderhood falsely accused Hexam of murdering "Harmon".

*While accompanying his friend, Mortimer Lightwood, to identify Harmon's body, Eugene Wrayburn meets and falls in love with Hexam's daughter, Lizzie.

*Charley Hexam, Lizzie's younger brother, has a headmaster named Bradley Headstone, who becomes romantically and violently obsessed with Lizzie.

*Mr. Boffin hires a ballad-seller with a wooden leg named Silas Wegg to read for him. When he finds another will of Old Harmon's in the dust, he schemes with a taxidermist named Mr. Venus to blackmail his newly rich employer.

One of the reasons I had such difficulties in embracing the 1998 version of "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" was the complex nature of the narrative. The story began with the death of the fake John Harmon and the latter's deception and spiraled out into different subplots. Years ago, I had made the mistake of assuming that most of these subplots had no connection whatsoever. Following my other viewings of the 1998 miniseries and this production, I now realize that the subplots had three major connections - money, class and John Harmon. Nearly every subplot had something to do with money, class or both. As for John Harmon . . . I found myself pondering on the fates of the main characters if John had not made that decision to recruit that sailor into his deception regarding his identity. Perhaps some of the subplots would have panned out - John and Bella's marriage (if he had agreed to the terms of his father's will), Charley Hexam's education, Lizzie Hexam's introduction to Bradley Headstone and her subsequent rejection of his marriage proposal. But there are some - Lizzie meeting Eugene Wrayburn, Eugene and Bradley's conflict, and Silas Wegg's attempt to blackmail Boffin - definitely would not have happened if John had not engaged in any deception on his part. Nearly the entire story seemed to be a case of "the Six Degrees of John Harmon".

One story arc from the novel seemed to be missing in this series - namely the attempt made by elite, yet impoverished newlyweds Alfred and Sophronia Lammle to befriend and scam a young heiress named Georgiana Podsnap. I can understand why the screenwriters had never included this arc into the miniseries, considering that the Lammles and Miss Podsnap had no connection to John Harmon, whatsoever. But apparently, the screenwriters had decided to delete them altogether, unlike screenwriter Sandy Welch, who had used the Lammles to go after Mr. Boffin in the 1998 adapation.

And how did "OUR MUTUAL FRIENDS" handled the narrative's multi-arcs? I thought director Peter Hammond, along with screenwriters Julia Jones and Donald Churchill managed to handle them quite well. Despite the various arcs being scattered to winds, all three managed to convey how they all connected in the end. My only complaint was how the director and the writers introduced the various arcs. I noticed that they mystery surrounding the discovery of John Harmon's body seemed to dominate the series' first episode, whereas the introductions of the Boffins and Bella Wilfer seemed to dominate the second. This seemed to give "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND"'s narrative a "paint-by-the-numbers" style in the miniseries' first third. From Episode Three and onward, Hammond, Jones and Churchill seemed to have no trouble juggling the various arcs within an episode.

But as much as I had enjoyed "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND", I have a few quibbles. Like a good number of BBC/ITV costume dramas between the 1950s and the 1980s, this production seemed to suffer from from the occasional slow pacing, due to Hammond shooting the miniseries more like a stage play. Granted, there were a few scenes that seemed avoid this fallacy, due to being filmed in an exterior setting - the Hexams' discovery of the fake John Harmon's body, Lizzie Hexam's discovery of the dying Betty Higden and Bradley Headstone's attack upon Eugene Wrayburn. But a good number of scenes - mainly those with interior settings and those that featured Silas Wegg and Mr. Venus' blackmail conspiracy - seemed to drag nearly forever, to the point that I found myself wondering if I was watching a televised stage play. I have one last complaint. The miniseries ended with the main characters briefly discussing Bradley Headstone's fate with a few words, not long after Eugene and Lizzie's marriage. As much as I had enjoyed this production, I found this ending rather abrupt and cold - quite disappointing, when I recall how the 1998 miniseries had ended.

As much as I had enjoyed many of the performances in the miniseries, there were the occasional bouts of hammy acting that left me wincing. For me, the biggest offenders proved to be Alfie Bass, Edmond Bennett, David Troughton, and Kathleen Harrison. Do not get me wrong. They all managed to convey their characters' personalities very well. But I believe they had indulged just a bit too much in stagey or hammy acting for my taste. But there were performances that I had actually enjoyed. Granted, performers like Leo McKern and Polly James, who portrayed Mr. Boffin and Jenny Wren respectively, had their moments of hammy acting. But I thought they managed to give first-rate performances in the long run, creating some memorable interpretations of their characters. However, the series featured some excellent supporting performances from the likes of Andrew Ray, John Collin, Ray Mort, Patricia Lawrence and Ronald Lacey.

The miniseries also featured some outstanding performances. They included John McInery as the intelligent, yet compassionate John Harmon; Lesley Dunlop, whose Lizzie Hexam managed to be warm and caring without any taint of treacly behavior; Jack Wild as Lizzie's eager and ambitious younger brother Charley Hexam; and Warren Clarke as Bradley Headstone, who managed to be both sympathetic, yet frightening at the same time. Yet, I believe the two best performances came from Nicholas Jones and Jane Seymour as Eugene Rayburn and Bella Wilfer. Jones gave a subtle, yet very complex performance as the roguish Eugene, who seemed torn by his love for Lizzie and his reluctance to pursue her honestly, due to her lower class. Seymour's portrayal of Bella struck me as equally complex, as she managed to convey her character's growing development from the mercenary and shallow girl to a warm, generous and yet spirited woman.

Aside from the opening shot of the Thames River for each episode, I must admit that I found myself unimpressed by Elmer Cossey's cinematography and Sam Barclay's lighting. Not only did I find the miniseries' visuals rather flat, but also a bit too dark. On the other hand, I thought Chris Pemsel's production designs pretty spot-on. I thought he did a competent job in re-creating mid-19th century London and England. I especially have to give praise to Robin Fraser-Paye's costume designs. I found his costumes - especially for female characters like Bella Wilfer, Lizzie Hexam, Mrs. Boffin and Jenny Wren - rather exquisite, as shown in the image below:



As for the hairstyles featured in "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" . . . I have mixed feelings about them. I have no idea who the hairstylist was, but he or she did managed to come close in re-creating mid-19th century hairstyles. Only those worn by most of the younger female characters seemed to be loose curls or flowing curly hair in the style of those featured in many pre-Raphaelite paintings - especially by Lesley Dunlop and Polly James. Although such hairstyles were popular in mid-19th century art (especially in Britain), I have grave doubts that many women - or many young women between the 1840s and the 1860s wore their hair in such a manner.

Overall, I cannot deny that "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" was a first-rate adaptation of Charles Dickens' 1864-1865 novel. Yes, I had a few issues that included the miniseries' photography, some writing decisions, a few over-the-top performances and the belief that I felt I was watching a filmed play. But despite these quibbles, "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" also featured some top-notch performances from a cast led by John McInery and a screenplay by Julia Jones and Donald Churchill that did Dickens' novel proud.

"MANHATTAN" Season Two (2015) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from Season Two of the WGN series, "MANHATTAN". Created by Sam Shaw, the series starred John Benjamin Hickey:

"MANHATTAN" SEASON TWO (2015) Photo Gallery

"THE CHISHOLMS" (1979): Chapter I Commentary

 

"THE CHISHOLMS" (1979): CHAPTER I Commentary

Years ago, before the advent of DVDs, I had perused my local video rental store for something to watch. I came across a miniseries called "THE CHISHOLMS". Due to it being a Western and possessing a running time of four hours and thirty minutes, I decided to give it a chance. I managed to purchase a VHS copy of the miniseries and enjoy for several years. But with the advent of the DVD and my VHS player going on the blink, I had to wait quite a while before I could finally get a DVD copy of it.

Based upon Evan Hunter's 1976 novel, "THE CHISHOLMS" told the story of a family from western Virginia, who make the momentous decision to travel west to California after losing part of their farm to a neighbor, due to some unusual circumstances. Unlike many other television and movie productions about the westward migration during the 1840s, "THE CHIISHOLMS" took its time in setting up the story. In this first episode, it spent at least an hour introducing the Chisholm family - namely:

*Hadley Chisholm - the family's patriarch and owner of a farm in western Virginia
*Minerva Chisholm - the family's matriarch
*William "Will" Chisholm - Hadley and Minerva's oldest son, who is also a veteran of the Texas Revolution
*Gideon Chisholm - Hadley and Minerva's second son
*Bonnie Sue Chisholm - Hadley and Minerva's older daughter and Beau's twin
*Beau Chisholm - Hadley and Minerva's youngest son and Bonnie Sue's twin
*Annabel Chisholm - Hadley and Minerva's younger daughter and youngest offspring

The first episode or Chapter I began with Will's wedding to a young local woman named Elizabeth during the spring of 1843. Also, the family is unaware of Bonnie Sue's romance with a young man named Brian Cassidy. Unfortunately for her and Brian, the Chisholms and the Cassidys have been engaged in a feud ever since Hadley's brother had rejected Brian's aunt at the wedding altar several decades ago. When the latter died, the Chisholms and the Cassidys discovered that she had received a portion of the Chisholm land - the farm's most fertile - from Hadley's brother as compensation for being dumped. She never revealed this to her family or the Chisholms. But she did leave her land to her brother and Brian's father, Luke Cassidy, who did not wait long to demand that the Chisholms hand over the land. Matters worsen for the Chisholms when Will's bride die from an infection after giving birth to an unborn child.

With no fertile land to farm, Hadley Chisholm decides to pack his family and migrate to California. Most of the family agrees with his decision, except Minerva, who is reluctant to leave Virginia; and Bonnie Sue, who is reluctant to leave Brian. The journey west goes without a hitch, until the family reaches Louisville, Kentucky. There, they discover from a young Western guide named Lester Hackett that they had departed Virginia at least a month or two late for the journey to California. The family had reached Louisville in mid-May 1844, around the time when most emigrant wagon trains usually departed Independence, Missouri. Upon learning this, Hadley changes his mind about the journey to California and decides to return to Virginia. But Will informs him that there are other members of the family are willing to utilize Lester's plan that would eliminate some time from their trip to Independence. After the Chisholms decide to continue west via a family vote, they utilize Lester's plan by boarding a flat-bottom boat that takes them to Evansville in western Indiana, cutting off their journey by a few weeks.

Some people might find the first hour of "THE CHISHOLMS" rather hard to endure. Most movie and television productions usually spend at least fifteen minutes in introducing its characters and conveying the reasons behind their decision to migrate to the West. "THE CHISHOLMS" spent an hour. Personally, this did not bother me, for I found the circumstances behind the Chisholms' decision to head for California rather interesting. Especially since the circumstances involved a potential feud with another family. Other reasons why I rather enjoyed the miniseries' first hour was how the circumstances in which the family made its departure originated with Hadley Chisholm's displeasure over the neighborhood's new minister from Vermont and how the latter conducted Elizabeth Chisholm's funeral. I would explain how Hadley's conflict over the new minister led to the family sneaking away from their home in the middle of the night. But it would require a great deal of narration on my part. And honestly, I would suggest that you simply watch the miniseries.

Once the family hit the road for California, the miniseries went into full steam. Chapter I only followed the Chisholms from Virginia to southwestern Indiana, but a good deal happened in that half hour. The temptation to return home to Virginia hovered over the family all the way to Louisville. And when the family learned from Lester Hackett that they had left Virginia about a month or so too late, even Hadley was tempted to turn around. What I found interesting about this turn of events is that Chisholms' decision on whether to return to Virginia or continue west to California depended upon a family vote . . . and the instant attraction between Bonnie Sue Chisholm and Lester. Personally, I would have ended Chapter I with that scene inside a Louisville stable. Hadley and Minerva's willingness to decide the whole matter on a vote, along with the sexual attraction between Bonnie Sue and Lester, would end up producing major consequences later in the miniseries and in the short-lived television series that followed. Instead, the Chisholms experienced a brief journey down the Ohio River on a broad horn (flat-bottom raft), while Minerva endured the unwanted attention of the broad horn's captain (or patroon) named Jimmy Jackson. By the time the family reached the outskirts of Evansville, they had reached the point of no return.

Another aspect about "THE CHISHOLMS" that I enjoyed, was how the producers, director Mel Stuart and the screenwriters utilized the production's historical background without hitting viewers over the head with facts. The family had departed Virginia in 1844, a year that featured a Presidential election. Not once did the topic of the election graced anyone's lips. But the miniseries made it clear that Will Chisholm was a veteran of the Texas Revolution of 1836. The miniseries also brought up the topic of slavery. The narrative pointed out that Hadley's wealthiest neighbor was a planter and slave owner. And during the last half hour of Chapter I, a coffle of slaves was among the other passengers aboard Jimmy Jackson's broad horn, leading Minerva Chisholm to express anti-slavery sentiments. I also enjoyed how the miniseries gave television viewers a lengthy peek into life in the early-to-mid 19th century Appalachia. I have always admired Aaron Copeland's score for the miniseries. But I must admit that his score contributed to this episode's first hour, which featured the Chisholms' life in western Virginia.

Most of the production's historical background seemed to revolve around the family's westward journey. Unlike many Hollywood productions, television viewers did not see the Chisholms' wagon being pulled by horses (which is historically inaccurate). And the narrative went out of its way to point out that the family had started its westbound journey about a month or two late. I also enjoyed the brief montage that featured the Chisholms' early start on the journey and what it took for them to maintain supplies and keep their wagon in condition. Steven P. Sardanis's production designs, the art direction that he provided with Fred Price, Charles Korian and Charles B. Price's set decorations, and Tom Costick's costumes (to a certain extent), did a great job in re-creating western Virginia and the Ohio River Valley circa 1844.

But in the, the cast proved to be the best thing about "THE CHISHOLMS". I must commend casting director Vicki Rosenberg for gathering a first-rate collection of performers for the cast. The miniseries featured solid performances from Dean Hill, Jack Wallace, Maureen Steindler, Tom Taylor, James O'Reilly and Gavin Troster; even if they did not exactly rock my boat. Glynnis O'Connor gave a charming performance as Will's young wife, Elizabeth Chisholm. Anthony Zerbe gave a spotless performance as the sleazy flat boat patroon, Jimmy Jackson. But the one supporting performance that caught my eye came from Charles Frank, who gave the first of a series of dazzling performance as the charmingly ambiguous Lester Hackett.

Rosenberg casting of the Chisholm family proved to be even more impressive to me. Susan Swift gave a very charming and balanced performance as the family's youngest member, Annabel Chisholm, who seemed divided between the adventure of migrating to California and being mindful of her mother's reluctance to move. James Van Patten gave a very energetic and intense performance as the family's hot-tempered member, Beau Chisholm. Stacy Nelkin's portrayal of the sensual, yet pragmatic Bonnie Sue Chisholm struck me as very skillful, which is why her performance was one of my favorites in the series. Brian Kerwin, whom I remember from the 1982 miniseries, "THE BLUE AND THE GRAY", seemed a bit laid back as middle son, Gideon Chisholm. But he gave a charming performance in the end. Ben Murphy portrayed the oldest sibling, Will Chisholm. And I thought he did a great job in revealing how Will seemed to be an interesting combination of his parents. I was especially impressed by how he handled Will's grief over Elizabeth's death.

Years after I had first seen "THE CHISHOLMS", I was surprised to learn that the two leads - Robert Preston and Rosemary Harris - had first worked together on the 1966 Broadway play, "THE LION IN THE WINTER". I do not know if having them reunite for the 1979 miniseries was Rosenberg or someone's idea, but it was a damn good one, all the same. What can I say? Whatever magic Preston and Harris had created on Broadway back in the mid-1960s, they managed to re-create it front of the television camera some 12 to 13 years later. In some ways, the pair seemed like the yin and yang of the Chisholm family. They were so perfect together that I do not know how else to describe their performance.

Before I end this article, I must admit there were one or two aspects of "THE CHISHOLMS" that either did not impress me or . . . confused me. Although I believe that Tom Costick's costumes added to the production mid-1840s setting . . . but only to a certain degree. It did seem that a great deal of Costick's costumes looked as if they had come out of a Hollywood warehouse, instead of being created by him. Especially the women's costumes. Even those costumes worn by well-to-do women in the Louisville sequence gave that impression. And I am a little confused about the circumstances surrounding Hadley's loss of his most fertile cornfield. I understood how he lost the actual land to Luke Cassidy. What I did not understand was how Cassidy managed to take possession of the corn that the Chisholm family had already sown. Surely the court would have allowed the Chisholms to profit from the corn sown from seeds purchased by them? If someone could clear this matter for me, please do so.

Despite my quibbles regarding the costumes and the matter surrounding the cornfield lost to the Chisholms, I enjoyed Chapter I of "THE CHISHOLMS" very much. In fact, watching it reminded me why it had become one of my favorite miniseries in the first place. Why on earth did I wait so long in watching it again? Oh well . . . on to Chapter II.