"PERIL AT END HOUSE" (1990) Review

 

"PERIL AT END HOUSE" (1990) Review

I just realized something. I have never read Agatha Christie's 1932 novel, "Peril at End House". I find this ironic, considering that I have seen the 1990 television movie adaptation of this novel at least three or four times. One of these days, I will get around to reading Christie's novel and comparing it to the television adaptation. Right now, I am going to focus on the latter. 

Directed by Renny Rye and adapted by Clive Exton, "PERIL AT END HOUSE" is the first full-length television movie aired on "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT". It is also about Belgian-born detective Hercule Poirot's efforts to prevent the murder of a young socialite, during his vacation in Cornwall. The movie begins with Poirot and his friend Arthur Hastings arriving at a Cornish seaside resort for their vacation. While conversing with socialite Magdala "Nick" Buckley on the resort's grounds, Poirot notices that someone had fired a bullet into the brim of her floppy hat. Poirot exposes the bullet hole to Nick, who finds it difficult to believe that someone wants to kill her. She points out that aside from her house - End House - has no real assets. Poirot decides to investigate her inner circle, who includes the following:

*Charles Vyse - Nick's cousin and an attorney
*Mr. and Mrs. Croft - an Australian couple that has leased the lodge near End House, who had suggested Nick make a will six months earlier
*Freddie Rice - a close friend of Nick's, who is also an abused wife
*Jim Lazarus - an art dealer in love with Nick
*Commander George Challenger - a Royal Navy officer who is also attracted to Nick

Poirot eventually advises Nick to invite a relative to stay with her for a few weeks. Nick invites her distant cousin Maggie Buckley. Unfortunately, someone kills Maggie, after she makes the mistake of wearing Nick's dress shawl during an evening party. Even worse, the killer eventually achieves his/her goal by sending a box of poisoned chocolates to Nick, while she was recuperating at a local hospital.

"PERIL AT END HOUSE" possessed a certain plot device that Christie had used in several of her novels. I would describe this plot device. But to do so would spoil the rest of the story. It took me years to spot this plot device. And I should be surprised that I have not come across anyone else who has spotted it. And yet . . . I am not. The fact that it took me several years to spot this particular plot device only tells me that Christie has utilized it with great effect in some of her more interesting and well-written mysteries. Thankfully, "PERIL AT END HOUSE" proved to be one of those well-written mysteries.

I must admit that Clive Exton did a pretty damn good job in adapting Christie's novel for the television screen. He stuck very closely to the original novel's plot . . . with a few changes that did no harm to the overall movie. Both Exton and Rye presented a well-paced production to the audiences. They set up the story with Poirot and Hastings' arrival to Cornwall and continued on with without any haste or dragging feet. The only time the movie threatened to put me to sleep occurred between the story's second murder and the revelation of the killer . . . . when the story threatened to ground to a halt. I have one last problem - namely the appearance of Chief Inspector Japp. I realize that Japp did appear in the novel. But his appearance merely dealt with Poirot's request that he investigate the Crofts, whom the Belgian detective suspected of being forgers. The cinematic Japp immediately appeared following Maggie Buckley's death as the main police investigator. And Cornwall is not under Scotland Yard's main jurisdiction. 

The production values for "PERIL AT END HOUSE" proved to be top-notch. Rye shot the film's exterior scenes in Salcombe, Devon; instead of the county of Cornwall. I found that curious. However, both he and cinematographer Peter Bartlett certainly took advantage of the movie's setting with Bartlett's photography of Salcombe's charming, Old World style. This was especially apparent in the movie's opening sequence that featured Poirot and Hasting's arrival by airplane. Actually, production designer Mike Oxley did an excellent job of recreating an English vacation resort in the early 1930s. The production practically reeked of the Art Deco style of that time period. However, I was especially impressed by Linda Mattock's costume designs. I was especially impressed by those costumes worn by actresses Polly Walker, Pauline Moran and Alison Sterling. My only complaints about the movie's visual styles were the actresses' hairstyles. No one seemed capable of re-creating the early 1930s soft bob. The actresses either wore a chignon or in the case of Sterling, a Dutch Boy bob made famous by actress Louise Brooks in the late 1920s.

"PERIL AT END HOUSE" featured some solid performances by the cast. David Suchet gave his usual excellent portrayal of Hercule Poirot. I was especially impressed by the on-screen chemistry he managed to produce with Polly Walker. The latter gave a standout performance as the killer's main target, Madgala "Nick" Buckley. Walker did an excellent job of transforming Nick from the charming "Bright Young Thing" to a wary and frightened woman, who realizes that someone is trying to kill her. Alison Sterling was also excellent as one of Nick's closest friends, "Freddie" Rice. Next to Walker's Nick, Sterling gave an interesting and skillful portrayal of the very complex Freddie. Hugh Fraser, Pauline Moran and Philip Jackson were also excellent as Arthur Hastings, Miss Lemon and Chief Inspector Japp. All three, along with Suchet, managed to re-create their usual magic. The movie also featured solid performances from Paul Geoffrey (whom I found particularly convincing as an early 30s social animal), John Harding, Christopher Baines and Elizabeth Downes. I found the Australian accents utilized by Jeremy Young and Carol Macready, who portrayed the Crofts, rather wince inducing. But since their accents were supposed to be fake in the first place, I guess I had no problems.

For some reason, "PERIL AT END HOUSE" never became a big favorite of mine, despite its acclaim. It is a well done adaptation of Christie's novel. And I found it visually attractive, thanks to the movie's production team. The movie also featured some excellent performances - especially from David Suchet, Polly Walker and Alison Sterling. Naturally, it is not perfect. But that is not the problem. I cannot explain my lack of enthusiasm for "PERIL AT END HOUSE". I can only assume that I found nothing particularly mind blowing or fascinating about its plot. To me, it is simply a good, solid murder mystery that has managed to entertain me on a few occasions. Perhaps . . . that is enough.

"THE ARTIST" (2011) Review

 

"THE ARTIST" (2011) Review

I must have been one of the few people who had been unaware of "THE ARTIST", when it first hit the American movie theaters in late 2011. To be honest, I was not paying much attention to that particular awards season. I had been unable to find a movie that aroused my interest. When I discovered that the French-American film had overcome George Clooney's "THE DESCENDANTS", to become the Academy Awards Best Picture winner . . . well, color me surprised.

Michel Hazanavicius' ode to Old Hollywood told the story of a successful silent film star named George Valentin, who seemed to be at the peak of his fame in 1927. At the premiere of his latest hit, he meets a young fan named Peppy Miller outside of the movie theater. She eventually catches the eyes of the press, when a photograph of the two appear in the newspapers, the following morning. It does not take long for Peppy's career as a movie actress to rise. But when George's studio boss, Al Zimmer, announces the end of Kinograph Studios' silent movies production, the actor dismisses the news, claiming that sound is nothing but a fad. George decides to finance, produce and direct his own silent film. Both his new silent movie and Peppy's new sound film open on the same day as the 1929 Stock Market Crash. While audiences flock to see Peppy's new movie - making her a major Hollywood star - George's film becomes a flop . . . and he finds himself financially ruined. Because his rejection of talkies remain steadfast, it is not long before George becomes a broke, Hollywood has been.

Within a few months, "THE ARTIST" managed to acquire near universal acclaim on both sides of the Atlantic. Not only did the movie win five Academy Awards - including Best Picture, Best Director (Hazanavicius) and Best Actor for leading man Jean Dujardin; the movie also won seven BAFTA awards, six César awards, three Golden Globe awards and two awards at the Cannes Film Festival. I have not encountered a movie this universally acclaimed in years. And if I must say so, it did not deserve a single award.

That is correct. I consider "THE ARTIST" to be one of the most overrated movies I have seen in years. In fact, I find it even more overrated than 2010's Oscar winner, "THE KING'S SPEECH". Perhaps I had exaggerated a bit. There were a few awards that I believe it deserved. I found Ludovic Bource's score surprisingly impressive. I was also impressed by Mark Bridges' award winning costume designs and Guillaume Schiffman's nominated cinematography. And I cannot deny that I was more than impressed by Jean Dujardin's performance as the ego-centric George Valentin. Did he deserve the Best Actor award? Personally, I would have given Gary Oldman's performance in "TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY" the award. But I still believe that Dujardin gave an above-average performance. The movie also featured supporting performances and cameos from Hollywood veterans such as John Goodman, James Cromwell, and Penelope Ann Miller. I thought they all gave solid performances, especially Miller and Cromwell.

Despite my feelings about the costumes, photography, the score and Dujardin's performance, I still believe that "THE ARTIST" is an overrated movie that did not deserve most of the accolades it received. For me, it was a charming little movie with gimmicks about Old Hollywood. I would equate it at the same level as Blake Edwards' 1988 Hollywood mystery, "SUNSET". Okay, perhaps I am being a little cruel. Even "THE ARTIST" is a lot better than Edwards' film. But I find myself unable to view it as a cinematic masterpiece. For me, it was simply an entertaining, yet near-mediocre film.

One of the problems I had with "THE ARTIST" was that Hazanavicius' script never explained why Valentin had refused to do a talking picture. Why? Unlike Charlie Chaplin, he was not originally described as a multi-tasked Hollywood talent. Valentin was never regarded as another Emil Jennings, whose Hollywood career ended due to a thick European accent. Granted, Dujardin's French accent struck me as somewhat thick, but it was never pointed out. And if the Valentin character really had a thick accent, his Hollywood career would have never been revived as a song-and-dance man at the movie's conclusion. Even Fred Astaire needed a decent voice. Nor was Valentin portrayed as a another John Gilbert, whose career was destroyed by a studio boss that hated his guts. Granted, Valentin managed to annoy Zimmer in his refusal to accept talkies. But Zimmer merely regarded Valentin with mild contempt, not hatred. In the end, Valentin's refusal to do talkies was never really explored. And this strikes me as bad writing on Hazanavicius' part.

The movie earned a good deal of controversy when Hollywood icon Kim Novak accused composer Ludovic Bource of incorporating a portion of Bernard Herrmann's score from Alfred Hitchcock's 1958 film "VERTIGO". Since I have never seen "VERTIGO", I cannot comment on Novak's accusation. However, I have seen "A STAR IS BORN", "SUNSET BOULEVARD", and "SINGIN' IN THE RAIN". I noticed that "THE ARTIST" incorporated a great deal of story ideas and scenes from these movies. Unfortunately, I believe that Hazanavicius did so in an unoriginal way. Even the happy-go-lucky "SINGIN' IN THE RAIN" had ten times the biting wit and a more in-depth, if slightly fictional looking into Hollywood's transition to sound. Perhaps the reason I found the story hard to accept was because Hazanavicius decided to film the movie without sound. All I can say is . . . why? What was the point? I wanted a look at Old Hollywood during the late 1920s and early 1930s, not a gimmicky ode to the era.

"THE ARTIST" possessed other aspects that did not sit well with me. Hazanavicius cast his wife, French-Argentine actress Bérénice Bejo, to portray rising star Peppy Miller. Bejo received numerous nominations and a César Award for Best Actress for her performance. I cannot deny that she gave a first-rate performance. Unfortunately, she seemed like a 21st century anchorism, stuck in the early 20th century. Bejo simply looked out of place in period movie like "THE ARTIST". Valentin's Jack Russell terrier, Uggie, was so cute that I found myself in danger of a sugar overdose, just by simply watching. After viewing the scene in which Uggie saved Valentin from a burning house by summoning a police, I either wanted to throw up or put a bullet in that mutt. As much as I enjoyed Mark Bridges' late 1920s costumes, I was not impressed by the costumes for the movie's 1930s setting. Looking at Bridges' costumes for the early sound era, I found it hard to believe that the film's second half was set between 1930 and 1932/33. Many people enjoyed Dujardin and Bejo's dance routine that marked the film's conclusion. I cannot deny that I found their performance impressive. But it was also a jaw-dropping moment for me . . . and not in a good way. My mind kept reminding me that I should be applauding. Instead, I found myself silently chanting - "What the hell?" And what was the point of this?

Look, I am not claiming to dislike "THE ARTIST". How could I? I thought it was an entertaining film about Old Hollywood. It seemed a lot of fun. But a fun movie does not automatically it make a great one. And despite the awards and accolades that it received, I cannot agree with the prevailing view that "THE ARTIST" was a great film. Not by a long shot.

"CHARMED" RETROSPECT: (2.14) "Pardon My Past"

 

"CHARMED" RETROSPECT: (2.14) "Pardon My Past"

In the "CHARMED" Season Two episode, (2.14) "Pardon My Past", one of the Charmed Ones – Phoebe Halliwell - is haunted by a spirit from her past life. The past life turned out to be one P. Russell, a first cousin of the Halliwell sisters' great-grandmother.

To find out why she is being haunted by P. Russell’s spirit, Phoebe visited 1924 and discovered that P. Russell was a pyrokinetic witch who had been romanced by a warlock named Anton. While in the past, Phoebe also acquired a glimpse into the past lives of her older sisters – Prue and Piper. She discovers that they were former relatives of P. Russell that were out to destroy her and all the latter's future lives before any of them can become completely evil. Prue and Piper must then stop their past lives' curse in the present before Phoebe falls victim to it and dies.

Did this episode sound confusing? I thought it did. "Pardon My Past" was the second episode, following Season One's (1.17) "That 70s Episode" that revealed a bit of the Charmed Ones' family past history. And like many of these type of episodes . . . it had a lot of flaws. Let us take a look at them, shall we?

Flaws in "Pardon My Past"

*Ownership of the Manor – In this episode, it was revealed that the parents of the sisters’ grandmother – Penelope Johnson Halliwell – were living in the manor in 1924. Yet, according to the Season One episode, (1.15) "Is There a Woogy in the House?", the Halliwells (which happened to be Penny Halliwell's in-laws) had purchased the manor following the San Francisco Earthquake in 1906.

*The Ages of Phoebe Halliwell and P. Russell - While perusing the Warren family tree, Phoebe had this to say about her past life:

"I think that this one is me. (She points to P. Russell) She died February 17th, 1924. The same age I am also."

How was this possible? According to the family tree, P. Russell was born on July 1894 and died on February 17, 1924. She was 29 years old when her cousins killed her. The episode "Pardon My Past" occurred between February 16-18, 1924; and February 16-18, 2000. Phoebe was born on November 2, 1975; making her 24 years old at the time of the story, not 29 years old.


*Past Life for Leo Wyatt? - According to Phoebe, she had spotted the past life of the Charmed Ones' whitelighter, Leo Wyatt, in 1924; and was P. Baxter’s (Past Piper) lover. I am curious. How was this possible? The series has claimed that Leo was born in May 1924. But again, this is not possible. According to the Season One episode, (1.21) "Love Hurts", Leo had been a medical student when he joined the Army in 1942:

"No. World War II. I left med school and enlisted as a medic. I wanted to help save people not shoot them. The last thing I remember, I was bandaging a soldier's head wound and I felt a sharp pain and the next thing I know I was floating surrounded by White Lighters."

If Leo had been in medical school at the time when the U.S. entered World War II in December 1941, he should have at least older than 22 years old when he joined the Army. Which means that he should have already been alive at the time of P. Russell’s death in 1924.


*Phoebe’s Theory - How did Phoebe get the idea that she was going to die within a day, because of her encounter with her past spirit? From the moment she had encountered P. Russell’s spirit on the very anniversary that the latter was killed, Phoebe made this assumption:

"So, it doesn’t mean that I’m going to die today too, right?"

Even before she found out about the curse placed on P. Russell’s future selves, Phoebe came to the conclusion that she was doomed to die:

"Phoebe: Not much time. By midnight, I’ll be dead again.
Piper: By midnight? How do you know that?
Phoebe: Midnight, a full moon, what’s the difference? It’s always one or the other, right? I know I won’t make it to February 18th unless…
Leo: You go back to the past again and find some answers."

How on earth did she come to this conclusion without knowing the facts? Or was this another example of the Halliwells producing theories out from their respective asses?


*Phoebe’s Ability - Phoebe had asked Leo why she did not have a power like P. Russell’s – pyrokinesis. This is what Leo had told her:

"Well, if you screw up your regrets. Your past self must have abused the power. That's why it was taken away from you."

What the hell? How did Leo come to this conclusion? Although Past Piper (P. Baxter)’s ability, slow down others, was a variation of Piper’s ability; Past Prue (P. Bowen)’s ability turned out to be cyrokinesis (freezing ability), which had nothing to do with Prue’s abilities of telekinesis or astral projection. Nor did P. Russell’s ability (pyrokinesis) have anything to do with Phoebe’s ability of precognition. And why is Phoebe’s precognition ability considered a REGRESSION of P. Russell’s fire ability? Phoebe is a seer. She has the ability to summon information on the past, the present and the future through visions. Information is power. Both of her parents have told Phoebe that many magic practitioners would kill to be a seer. Apparently, Phoebe never believed them. Even the Source did not want Phoebe’s precognition ability . . . despite the fact that he had depended upon two seers. Which only told me that even intelligent individuals like Phoebe and the Source can be incredibly stupid.


*The Warlock – Anton - So, Anton(who was P. Russell’s lover) was supposed to be a warlock? How is that possible? It is quite apparent that Anton had never aged during the 76 years between 1924 and 2000. It was established in the series' first episode, (1.01) "Something Wicca Comes This Way" that warlocks were merely witches who had gone bad:

"A bad witch or a warlock . . ."

Despite what Leo has claimed, witches ARE mortals. If Piper could die from a bullet wound in an alternate timeline, then witches are mortals. And if witches are mortals, then warlocks should also be mortals. Which means that either Anton should have aged, used magic to prevent aging, or he was something other than a warlock. Also . . . the sisters and Leo have declared many times that evil cannot love. Yet, Anton was in love with P. Russell and had remained in love with her for a long time.


*Phoebe’s Warning in the Book of Shadows - Apparently, all of Phoebe's future lives are doomed to die in their early 20's unless they can somehow stop P. Bowen and P. Baxter’s curse from affecting them. They end up saving present Phoebe by putting the necklace on her, but the rest of her future lives are still doomed to die in their early 20's. Thus, Phoebe wrote a warning in the Book of Shadows to warn her future selves about this. What if Phoebe’s future selves do not end up as a member of the Warren family line? Had anyone stopped to think of this?


*Gordon Johnson’s Piano Talent . . . or Lack Of - Greg Vaughn, who portrayed the Charmed Ones’ great-grandfather, Gordon Johnson, was shown playing the piano in 1924. Unfortunately, it appeared that Vaughn lacked the talent to fake playing the piano. One can easily see that his fingers do not even reach the keys.


*The Confusing Warren Family Tree - This episode marked the only appearance of the Warren family (which began with Charlotte and Melinda Warren) tree. I came across some interesting entries that seem contradictory:

-Grams' age: According to the family tree, Penelope Johnson (the sisters’ grandmother) was born in 1937. She gave birth to her only daughter, Patricia Halliwell, in 1950. Are we really expected to believe that Grams gave birth to Patty at the age of 13? I rather doubt it. The family tree also stated that Grams had died on March 3, 1968. Gee, the creator of the family got the date of Grams' death wrong by 30 years and six months.

-Piper’s birth year: According to the family tree, Piper was born in August 1973. Yet, in one Season One episode, Piper had identified herself as a Gemini. Also, in another Season One episode, (1.03) "Thank You For Not Morphing",the Charmed Ones' father Victor Halliwell (later renamed Victor Bennett) made it apparent that she was three years older than Phoebe, who was born in 1975. The Season Three episode (3.09) "Coyote Piper" supported Victor’s words with its revelation that Piper had graduated from Baker High in 1990, making her birth date of 1972 very plausible. And I doubt that young Piper was less than two years old in "That 70s Episode".

-The name of the Charmed Ones’ grandfather: According to the family tree, the name of the sisters’ maternal grandfather happened to be Jack Halliwell. Yet in the Season Six episode, (6.11) "Witchstock", he was renamed Allen. All I can say is . . . what happened to Jack?


I wish I could say that "Pardon My Past"’s glimpse into the Warren family line was interesting. But it was filled with so many inconsistencies that I cannot help but harbor a little contempt for screenwriter Michael Gleason, who had penned this episode; and for Constance Burge who produced it in the first place.

R.I.P. Shannen Doherty (1971-2024)

"EDWARD & MRS. SIMPSON" (1978) Review

 

"EDWARD & MRS. SIMPSON" (1978) Review

I have noticed in the past decade or two, there have been an increasing number of television and movie productions that either featured the Duke and Duchess of Windsor (aka King Edward VIII and Mrs. Wallis Simpson), either as supporting characters or lead characters. Actually, only one production - the 2011 movie, "W.E." - featured them as leads. And yet . . . with the exception of the 2011 movie, the majority of them tend to portray the couple as solely negative caricatures.

There have been other productions that portrayed Edward and Wallis as complex human beings. Well . . . somewhat complex. Television movies like 1988's "THE WOMAN HE LOVED" and 2005's "WALLIS & EDWARD" seemed to provide viewers with a highly romanticized view of the couple. Perhaps a bit too romanticized. And there was Madonna's 2011 movie, "W.E.", which seemed to offer a bit more complex view of the couple. But I thought the movie was somewhat marred by an alternate storyline involving a modern woman who was obsessed over the couple. I have seen a good number of productions about the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. Yet, for my money, the best I have ever seen was the 1978 miniseries, "EDWARD & MRS. SIMPSON".

Adapted by Simon Raven from Frances Donaldson's 1974 biography, "Edward VIII" and directed by him, the seven-part miniseries is basically an account of Edward VIII Abdication Crisis in 1936 and the pre-marital romance of the king and American socialite, Wallis Simpson, that led to it. The story began in 1928, when Edward Windsor was at the height of his popularity as Britain's Prince of Wales. At the time, the prince was courting two women - both married - Mrs. Freda Dudley Ward and Thelma Furness, Viscountess Furness. Some two or three years later, Thelma introduced Edward to Ernest and Wallis Simpson, a pair of American expatriates living in London. The couple became a part of the Prince of Wales' social set. But when Thelma left Britain in 1934 to deal with a family crisis regarding her sister Gloria Morgan Vanderbilt, Edward and Wallis grew closer. By the time Thelma returned to Britain, Wallis had become the Prince of Wales' official mistress. And both Thelma and Mrs. Dudley Ward found themselves unceremoniously dumped.

The miniseries eventually continued with the couple's growing romance between 1934 and 1935, despite disapproving comments and observations from some of the Prince of Wales' official staff and members of the Royal Family. But the death of King George V, Edward's father, led to the prince's ascension to Britain's throne as King Edward VIII. By this time, Edward had fallen completely in love with Wallis. And despite the opinion of his family, certain members of his social set and the British government, he became determined to marry and maker her his queen in time for his coronation.

"EDWARD & MRS. SIMPSON" is not perfect. I do have a few complaints about the production. I realize that screenwriter Simon Raven wanted to ensure a complex and balanced portrayal of both Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson. But there were times when I found his characterization a bit too subtle. This was most apparent in his portrayal of Edward's admiration of the fascist governments of Germany and Italy. It almost seemed as if Raven was trying to tiptoe around the topic and I found it rather frustrating. On the other hand, Raven's portrayal of Wallis at the beginning of her romance with Edward struck me as a bit heavy-handed. Quite frankly, she came off as some kind of femme fatale, who had resorted to deceit to maneuver Edward's attention away from his other two mistresses - Freda Dudley Ward and Lady Furness, especially when the latter was in the United States visiting her sister, Gloria Morgan Vanderbilt. The production's screenplay did indicate that Lady Furness may have conducted a flirtation with the Prince Aly Khan on the voyage back to Great Britain. Yet, Raven's screenplay seemed to hint that Wallis' machinations were the main reason Edward gave up both Mrs. Dudley Ward and Lady Furness.

Otherwise, I have no real complaints about "EDWARD & MRS. SIMPSON". Ten or perhaps, twenty years ago, I would have complained about the last three or four episodes that focused on Edward's determination to marry Wallis and the series of political meetings and conferences that involved him, her, her attorneys, the Royal Family, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, the king's equerries, politicians, lawyers and journalists. Now, I found it all rather interesting. What I found interesting about these scenes were the various reactions to Wallis Simpson. Many of them - especially the Royal Family, the equerries and Baldwin - seemed to regard her as some kind of "Jezebel" who had cast some kind of spell over Edward. In its worst form, their attitude came off as slut shaming. The majority of them tend to blame her for Edward's occasional lapses of duty and ultimate decision to abdicate. As far as I can recall, only two were willing to dump equal blame on Edward himself - Royal Secretary Alexander Hardinge and Elizabeth, Duchess of York, later queen consort and "Queen Mother".

Another reason why I found this hardened anti-Wallis attitude so fascinating is that the Establishment seemed very determined that Edward never marry Wallis. I understand the Royal Marriages Act 1772 made it possible for the British government to reject the idea of Wallis becoming Edward's queen consort, due to being twice divorced. But they would not even consider a morganatic marriage between the couple, in which Wallis would not have a claim on Edward's succession rights, titles, precedence, or entailed property. I am not saying that both Edward and Wallis were wonderful people with no flaws. But . . . this hostile attitude toward the latter, along with this hardened determination that the couple never marry struck me as excessive. Were the British Establishment and the Royal Family that against Edward marrying Wallis, let alone romancing her? It just all seem so unreal, considering that the pair seemed to share the same political beliefs as the majority of the British upper class. And considering that Wallis was descended from two old and respectable Baltimore families, I can only conclude that the British Establishment's true objection was her American nationality.

Although the political atmosphere featured in "EDWARD & MRS. SIMPSON" seemed very fascinating to me, the social atmosphere, especially the one that surrounded Edward, nearly dazzled me. "EDWARD & MRS. SIMPSON" is one of the few productions on both sides of the Atlantic that did a superb job in conveying the look and style of the 1930s for the rich and famous. This was especially apparent in the miniseries' first three episodes that heavily featured Edward's social life between 1928 and 1936. First, one has to compliment Allan Cameron and Martyn Hebert's production designs for re-capturing the elegant styles of the British upper classes during the miniseries' setting. Their work was ably enhanced by Ron Grainer's score, which he effectively mixed with the popular music of that period and Waris Hussein's direction, which conveyed a series of elegant montages on Edward's social life - including his royal visit to East Africa with Thelma Furness, the weekend parties held at his personal house, Fort Belevedere; and the infamous 1936 cruise around the Adriatic Sea, aboard a yacht called the Nahlin. But if there was one aspect of "EDWARD & MRS. SIMPSON" that truly impressed me were Jennie Tate and Diane Thurley's costume designs. When any costume designer has two leading characters known as major clothes horses, naturally one has to pull out all the stops. Tate and Thurley certainly did with their sumptious costume designs - especially for actress Cynthia Harris - that struck me as both beautiful and elegant, as shown in the images below:

 

that I was I was not surprised to learn that they had won BAFTAs for their work. Come to think of it, Cameron and Herbert won BAFTAs for their production designs, as well. Which they all fully deserved.

"EDWARD & MRS. SIMPSON" featured some solid and outstanding performances from the supporting cast. Cheri Lunghi and Kika Markham, who portrayed Edward's two previous mistresses Thelma Furness and Freda Dudley Ward; along with Andrew Ray and Amanda Reiss as the Duke and Duchess of York; gave very charming performances. I could also say the same for Trevor Bowen, Patricia Hodge and Charles Keating as Duff Cooper, Lady Diana Cooper and Ernest Simpson. Veterans such as Peggy Ashcroft, Marius Goring, Maurice Denham and Jesse Matthews provided skillful gravitas to their roles as Queen Mary, King George V, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Aunt Bessie Merryman (Wallis' aunt). And Nigel Hawthorne gave a warm and intelligent performance as Walter Monckton, who served as an adviser for both Edward and Wallis. And if you pay attention, you might spot Hugh Fraser portraying Anthony Eden in one particular scene.

But there were four performances that really impressed me. One came from John Shrapnel, who portrayed the King's Private Secretary Alexander Hardinge. It seemed as if Shrapnel had the unenviable task of portraying a man who seemed bent upon raining on Edward's parade . . . for the sake of the country and the Empire. There were times when I found his character annoying, yet at the same time, Shrapnel managed to capture my sympathy toward Hardinge's situation. I was also impressed by David Waller, who portrayed Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin. Waller also portrayed the politician in the 1988 television movie, "THE WOMAN HE LOVED". But I felt more impressed by Waller's performance in this production. I came away not only with Baldwin's dislike of Wallis and frustration with Edward; but Waller also made me realize how much of a politician Baldwin truly was . . . especially when the latter tried to convince Wallis to disavow Edward.

The true stars of "EDWARD & MRS. SIMPSON" proved to be the two leads - Edward Fox and Cynthia Harris. Of all of the actresses I have seen portray Wallis Warfield Simpson aka the Duchess of Windsor, I would say that Harris is the best I have ever seen. Not once did the actress succumb to hammy or heavy-handed acting . . . even when Simon Raven's screenplay seem bent upon portraying the American-born socialite as some kind of gold digger in the first episode, "The Little Prince". The late Art Buchwald and his wife Ann had recalled meeting the Duke and Duchess of Windsor at one of the latter's dinner parties in post-World War II Paris. Although their recollection of Edward was not that impressive, they seemed very impressed by Wallis, whom they described as a cool, yet charming and savy woman. And that is exactly how Harris had portrayed the future Duchess. More importantly, Harris revealed - especially in the last three episodes - that Wallis was more than a cool and witty woman. She was also a complex human being. Edward Fox won a BAFTA for his portrayal of King Edward VIII, the future Duke of Windsor. As far as I am concerned, he more than deserved that award. I was really impressed by how Fox portrayed Edward as a complex individual, instead of some one-note hedonist, as many productions were inclined to do in the past decade. Fox recaptured all of the warmth, charm and charisma of the future Duke of Windsor. And the same time, the actor revealed his character's frustration with his emotionally distant parents, his occasional bouts of immaturity, insecurity, self-absorption and single-minded love for Wallis. On one hand, Fox managed to skillfully express dismay at the economic conditions of the country's working-class and in other scenes revel in his character's luxurious lifestyle with abandonment. The actor's performance struck me as a great balancing act.

If I must be honest, the real reason why I managed to enjoy "EDWARD & MRS. SIMPSON" to this day is that it is almost a balanced portrayal of the British monarch and his lady love. Simon Raven, director Waris Hussein and a talented cast led by Edward Fox and Cynthia Harris managed to convey both the good and bad about the infamous royal pair without resorting to the cliches that have been apparent in other past and recent productions.

"EDWARD & MRS. SIMPSON" (1978) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "EDWARD AND MRS. SIMPSON", the 1978 adaptation of the events leading to the 1936 abdication of King Edward VIII of Great Britain. Based upon Frances Donaldson's 1974 biography, the seven-part miniseries starred Edward Fox and Cynthia Harris:

"EDWARD AND MRS. SIMPSON" (1978) Photo Gallery