Rosiepowell2000's blog

"ONE, TWO, BUCKLE MY SHOE" (1992) Review

 

"ONE, TWO, BUCKLE MY SHOE" (1992) Review

Nearly twenty years ago, ITV's "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" aired an adaptation of Agatha Christie's 1940 novel. Not only was "One, Two, Buckle My Shoe" considered one of Christie's darkest novels, due to its political overtones, the 1992 television adaptation acquired the same reputation. 

Directed by Ross Devenish and adapted by Clive Exton, "ONE, TWO, BUCKLE MY SHOE" centered on Hercule Poirot's investigation into the death of his dentist, one Dr. Henry Morely, which occurred less than two hours after the former's last appointment. Poirot's police colleague, Chief Inspector Japp of Scotland Yard, believes that Dr. Morely had committed suicide, because another one of his clients had died from an overdose of anaesthetic. However, Poirot and Japp eventually discovered that both Dr. Morely and Mr. Amberiotis' deaths may be tied to possible attempts on the life of a banker named Alistair Blunt, who also happened to be a client of the dentist. Other suspects in the case include a former actress-turned-missionary named Mabelle Sainsbury Seale, who knew Mr. Blunt and his first wife back in India, during the 1920s; a member of the British Blackshirts named Frank Carter, who also happened to be the boyfriend of Dr. Morely's assistant; Mr. Blunt's American sister-in-law, Mrs. Julia Olivera; and the latter's daughter, Jane Olivera.

As I had stated earlier, many fans of Christie's novel and the "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" seemed to harbor a very high regard of this particular story. I must admit there is a good deal about this production that I found impressive. Rob Harris's re-creation of 1936-37 London was superb. In fact, I would go as far to say that out of the many episodes and television movies that aired on "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT", I would count Harris' production designs as among the best. Harris' work was ably supported by Barbara Kronig's costume designs and Chris O'Dell's photography. And I also had to compliment Andrew Nelson's editing, especially in the sequence that featured the details that led to Dr. Morely's murder. I thought the entire scene was well paced.

The performances also struck me as first-rate. David Suchet was in fine form as Belgian detective, Hercule Poirot. He was ably supported by Philip Jackson's wry performance as Scotland Yard's Chief Inspector Japp. I realize that many may have been a little upset by the lack of Arthur Hastings and Miss Lemon's presence. But to be honest, I did not really miss them. Suchet and Jackson made a pretty strong screen team, as they have done in a few other productions. 

Most of the supporting cast gave solid performances, including Joanna Phillips-Lane, Laurence Harrington, and Carolyn Colquhoun. However, there were times that I found the latter's performance as Mabelle Sainsbury Seale to be a little ponderous. Peter Blythe did a good job in conveying both the charm and dignity of his character, Alistair Blunt, even if he came off as a bit smug toward Poirot, a man trying to prevent his murder. Helen Horton gave an amusing performance as Blunt's American sister-in-law, Julia Olivera. And I am relieved that her portrayal as a middle-aged American woman did not collapsed into a cliche, even if Clive Exton's screenplay gave her nearly every opportunity to do so. But I believe the best performance came from Christopher Eccleston, who portrayed one of the suspects - the boyfriend of Dr. Morely's assistant and a follower of the British Union of Fascists. Not only was Eccleston's performance brimmed with energy, he managed to inject sympathy into a character most would regard with disgust.

I wish I could say that "ONE, TWO, BUCKLE MY SHOE" was one of the best Christie adaptations I have seen. Many seemed to think so. I believe it had the potential to be one of the best. But I also believe that Clive Exton's script was riddled with a few flaws. One, Clive Exton wrote a convoluted script, which is not surprising since it was based upon a convoluted novel. Two, Exton and director Ross Devenish should have never included that prologue in 1925 India. It literally made it easier to solve the murders. And three, the script never made it clear why Alistair Blunt was needed to maintain some balance within Britain and Europe's political and economic climates. Why was it so important for Scotland Yard to discover who was trying to kill him? And three, the nursery rhyme chant that permeated the movie really got on my nerves. Why was it that every time ITV aired an Agatha Christie adaptation that featured a title from a nursery rhyme, it had to include an annoying and heavy-handed literary symbol into the production?

Despite a convoluted story and a prologue that made it easier to identify the murderer, I must admit that I still rather like"ONE, TWO, BUCKLE MY SHOE". It has a lot of style. I thought it did a great job in re-creating mid-1930s London. And it featured some top-notch performances led by David Suchet, Philip Jackson and a young Christopher Eccleston.

"THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" (2001) Review

 

"THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" (2001) Review

Over ten years ago, the BBC aired "", a four-part television adaptation of Anthony Trollope's 1875 novel. Adapted by Andrew Davies and directed by David Yates, the miniseries starred David Suchet, Shirley Henderson and Matthew Macfadyen. 

"THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" told the story of a Central European financier's impact upon upper-crust British society during the Victorian era. Augustus Melmotte arrives in London with his second wife and his daughter, Marie in the 1870s. Not long after his arrival, Melmotte announces a new scheme to finance a railroad project from Salt Lake City in Utah to the Gulf of Mexico. And he promises instant fortune to those who would invest in his scheme. The Melmotte family is also surrounded by a circle of decadent aristocrats and nouveau riche businessmen, all trying to get a piece of the financial pie. One of the investors is Sir Felix Carbury, a young and dissolute baronet who is quickly running through his widowed mother's savings. In an attempt to restore their fortunes, his mother, Lady Matilda Carbury writes historical potboilers - a 19th century predecessor to 20th century romance novels. She also plans to have Felix marry Marie, who is an heiress in her own right; and marry daughter Henrietta (Hetta) to their wealthy cousin, Roger Carbury. Although Marie falls in love with Felix, Melmotte has no intention of allowing his daughter to marry a penniless aristocrat. And Hetta shows no interest in Roger, since she has fallen in love with his young ward, an engineer named . However, Montague also proves to be a thorn in Melmotte's side, due to his suspicions about the legitimacy over the railroad scheme.

As one can see, the story lines that stream from Trollope's novel seemed to be plenty. In a way, the plot reminds me of the numerous story arcs that permeated 2004's "HE KNEW HE WAS RIGHT". Although some of the story arcs have nothing to do with Augustus Melmotte, nearly everyone seemed to have some connection to the financier. The exceptions to this rule proved to be the characters of American-born Mrs. Winifred Hurtle, Roger Carbury and Ruby Ruggles, a young farm girl who lives on Roger's estate. Mrs. Hurtle's story was strictly limited to her efforts to regain the affections of former lover and help Ruby deal with the licentious Sir Felix. Roger's story arc was limited to his unsuccessful efforts to win Henrietta's heart and deal with his knowledge of Paul and Mrs. Hurtle's relationship. Fortunately, "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" seemed to possess a tighter story than "HE KNEW HE WAS RIGHT". To a certain degree.

But I cannot deny that "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" was one of the most entertaining adaptations of a Trollope novel I have ever seen. If I must be honest, I enjoyed it more than I did "HE KNEW HE WAS RIGHT" or 1982's "THE BARCHESTER CHRONICLES". One of the reasons I enjoyed it so much was due to its portrayal of society's greed and opportunism. I have heard that Trollope had written the novel in protest against the greed and corruption of the 1870s, which resulted in the Long Depression that lasted between 1873 and 1879. The ironic thing is that the economic situation that Trollope believed had permeated British society during the 1870s had been around for a long time and would continue to permeate the world's economic markets time again - including the recent downturn that has cast a shadow on today's economies. Trollope's Augustus Melmotte is today's Bernie Madoff or Robert Maxwell.

Another aspect of "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" is that it revealed the darker aspects of Victorian society on a more personal level. I did not know whether to be amused or disgusted by the manner in which young British scions such as Sir Felix Carbury scrambled to win the affections of Marie Melmotte and get their hands on her money; or desperate debutantes like Georgiana Longestaffe willing to marry Jewish banker Mr. Brehgert, despite her contempt for his religious beliefs and social position. I doubt that the likes of Georgiana would never contemplate becoming an author of cheesy novels, like Lady Carbury or marrying a man with no funds - like . 

Thanks to Davies' screenplay and David Yates' direction, "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" permeated with a richly dark and comic style that beautifully suited Trollope's tale. Hardly anyone - aside from a few such as Paul Montague, Hetta Carbury and Mr. Brehgert - was spared from the pair's biting portrayal of Trollope's characters. Two of my favorite scenes featured a ball held by the Melmottes in Episode One and a banquet in honor of the Chinese Emperor in Episode Three. The banquet scene especially had me on the floor laughing at the sight of British high society members gorging themselves on the dishes prepared by Melmotte's cook. 

Although "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" is my favorite Trollope adaptation - so far - I must admit that I had a few problems with it. One, Andrew Davies' portrayal of the Paul Montague character struck me as slightly boring. Like his literary counterpart, Paul found himself torn between his love for Hetta and his sexual past with Mrs. Hurtle. But Davies' Paul seemed so . . . noble and stalwart that I found it hard to believe this is the same gutless wonder from Trollope's novel. And if I must be brutally honest, I found his relationship with Hetta Carbury to be another example of a boring romance between two boring young lovers that seemed to permeate Victorian literature. A part of me longed for Paul to end up with Winifred Hurtle. At least he would have found himself in a more interesting romance. I have one more quibble. In a scene featuring a major quarrel between Melmotte and his daughter Marie, there was a point where both were in each other's faces . . . growling like animals. Growling? Really? Was that necessary? Because I do not think it was.

One would think I have a problem with Cillian Murphy and Paloma Baeza's performances as Paul Montague and Hetta Carbury. Trust me, I did not. I thought both gave solid and competent performances. I feel they were sabotaged by Trollope's portrayal of their characters as "the young lovers" and Davies' unwillingness to put some zing into their romance. Miranda Otto made a very interesting Mrs. Hurtle, despite her bad attempt at a Southern accent. And Allan Corduner and Fenella Woolgar both gave solid performances that I did not find particularly memorable. On the other hand, I felt more than impressed by Cheryl Campbell as the charming and somewhat manipulative Lady Carbury; Douglas Hodge as the love-sick Roger Carbury; Oliver Ford-Davies as the grasping, yet bigoted Mr. Longestaffe; Helen Schlesinger's funny performance as the clueless Madame Melmotte; a poignant performance from Jim Carter, who portrayed Mr. Brehgert; and Anne-Marie Duff, who managed to create a balance between Georgiana Longstaffe's strong-willed willingness to marry a man of another faith and her self-absorption and bigotry.

However, the three performances that stood head above the others came from David Suchet, Shirley Henderson and Matthew Macfadyen. Suchet could have easily portrayed the scheming and gregarious Augustus Melmotte as a cartoonish character. And there were times when it seemed he was in danger of doing so. But Suchet balanced Melmotte's over-the-top personality with a shrewdness and cynicism that I found appealing - especially when those traits mocked the pretentiousness and hypocrisy of British high society. Shirley Henderson proved to be the perfect person to portray Melmotte's only daughter, Marie. Superficially, she seemed like a chip off the old block. But Henderson injected a great deal of compassion and poignancy into Marie's character, making it very easy for me to sympathize toward her unrequited love for Sir Felix Carbury and the heartache she felt upon discovering his lack of love for her. Matthew Macfadyen must have finally made a name for himself in his memorable portrayal of the dissolute Sir Felix Carbury. I cannot deny that Macfadyen revealed a good deal of Sir Felix's charm. But the actor made it pretty obvious that his character's charm was at best, superficial. Considering some of the roles he has portrayed over the decade that followed"THE WAY WE LIVE NOW", I believe Macfadyen's Sir Felix must have been one of the most self-absorbed characters in his repertoire. And he did a superb job with the role. It is a pity that he never received an acting nomination or award for his performance.

One cannot talk about "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" without pointing out the sumptuous production designs created by Gerry Scott. They were superb. With contributions from Diane Dancklefsen and Mark Kebby's art direction, Caroline Smith's set decorations, Chris Seager's photography and Andrea Galer's costume designs; Scott and his team did a wonderful job in re-creating Victorian society in the 1870s. I was especially impressed at how Galer's costumes captured the early years of that decade. I would never call Nicholas Hooper's score particularly memorable. But I cannot deny that it suited both the story's theme and setting.

Although I found a few aspects of "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" to complain about - notably the Paul Montague and Hetta Carbury characters. I cannot deny that it is a first-rate production, thanks to Andrew Davies' adaptation, David Yates' direction and a fine cast led by David Suchet. More importantly, the story's theme of greed and corruption leading to economic chaos was not only relevant to the mid-to-late Victorian era, but also for today's society. "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" strike me as a story for all times.

"4.50 FROM PADDINGTON" (1987) Review

 

"4.50 FROM PADDINGTON" (1987) Review

The 1957 Agatha Christie novel, "4.50 From Paddington" aka "What Mrs. McGillicuddy Saw" has been a favorite of mine since I was in my early teens. There have been one film and two television adaptations of the story. I never saw the film adaptation, which starred Margaret Rutherford. But I have seen the two television versions. One of them was the 1987 BBC adaptation that featured Joan Hickson as Miss Jane Marple. 

"4.50 FROM PADDINGTON" begins when Mrs. Elspeth McGillicuddy, an old friend of Miss Marple, travels by train to visit the latter in St. Mary's Mead. When her train passes another on a parallel track, she witnesses a woman being strangled inside a compartment of the latter. Mrs. McGillicuddy reports the murder to Miss Marple, who suggests that she contact the police. But due to her age and inability to see the murderer's face, Mrs. McGillicuddy is ignored by the police. Miss Marple decides to take matters into her own hands by tracing Mrs. McGillicuddy's rail journey. The elderly sleuth's investigation leads her to the Rutherford Hall estate, where the railway borders at a curved embankment. Miss Marple recruits an acquaintance of hers, a young professional housekeeper named Lucy Eyelesbarrow, to hire herself out to the family that resides at Rutherford Hall, the Crackenthorpes, to continue the investigation. 

Considering that the 1957 novel happened to be a favorite of mine, I had hoped this adaptation by T.R. Bowen would prove to be very satisfying. Needless to say . . . it did not. I am not one of those who demand that a movie or television adaptation adhere closely to its source. But some of the changes made by Bowen in his adaptation proved to be rather annoying to me. And I do not believe these changes served the movie very well. Among Bowen's changes were:

*No one was stricken by food poisoning

*Only one member of the Crackenthorpe family was murdered, instead of two

*The above mentioned victim was killed in a hunting accident, instead of being poisoned

*The nature of the romantic triange between Lucy Eyelesbarrow, Cedric Crackenthorpe and Bryan Eastley has been changed considerably

*Instead of Detective Inspector Dermot Craddock investigating the case, Detective Inspector Slack from three previous "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S MISS MARPLE" productions served as the main investigator

*The addition of Chief Inspector Duckham, who was an invention of the screenwriter, was added.

As I had stated earlier, the novel featured the second appearance of Dermot Craddock as the chief investigating officer in a Miss Marple mystery. But instead of hiring John Castle to reprise his Detective Inspector Craddock role from 1985's "A MURDER IS ANNOUNCED", the producers brought back David Horovitch to portray the irritating Detective Inspector Slack. Horovitch had already portrayed Slack in two previous Miss Marple movies, "A BODY IN THE LIBRARY" and "MURDER IN THE VICARAGE". Horovitch is a first-rate actor, but the character of Detective Inspector Slack has always annoyed me. I would have preferred if Craddock had made his second appearance in this movie. To make matters worse, actor David Waller, who had worked with T.R. Bowen for "EDWARD AND MRS. SIMPSON", was added to portray Chief Inspector Duckham, a character who never appeared in the novel.

Screenwriter T.R. Bowen made matters worse with more changes. Instead of two, only one member of the household ended up murdered - Harold Crackenthorpe, who was a banker. And his murder was disguised as a hunting accident. Harold was murdered with poisoned pills. Bowen completely left out the scene featuring a mass case of food poisoning from which the family suffered. Although the subject of Martine was brought up, Bowen never made the connection between her and the best friend of Bryan Eastley's son, Alexander. And instead of following Christie's portrayal of the "love triangle" between Lucy, Cedric Crackenthorpe and Eastley, who happened to the widower of the late Edith Crackenthorpe; Friend decided to settle matters by having Lucy fall in love with Eastley, who was portrayed as an infantile and suggestible man. Even worse, Lucy seemed to have lost her sense of humor, thanks to Bowen's script and Jill Meager's uninspiring performance. Friend also transformed Cedric into an annoying and oozing ladies' man who tries to hit on Lucy every chance he could. In the novel, Cedric never openly displayed his attraction to Lucy, when he was swapping witty bon mots with her. Yet, Christie made it obvious that he was attracted. And the novel left the matter open on whom Lucy would choose open. 

But the one change made by Friend that really annoyed me, turned out to be the big revelation scene. After Miss Marple identified the killer to the police, the Crackenthorpes and Elspeth McGillicuddy; a ridiculous action scene was tacked on by Bowen, allowing Eastley to run after and have a fight with the fleeing killer. It was quite obvious to me that this scene was nothing more than a setup for the audiences to approve of the unconvincing love story between the humorless Lucy and the infantile Eastley. What an incredibly stupid ending to the story!

But despite these flaws, I still managed to somewhat enjoy the movie. One, Joan Hickson was great as ever as Jane Marple. She was supported by solid performances from Joanna David as Emma Crackenthorpe, Andrew Burt as Dr. John Quimper, young Christopher Haley as Alexander Eastley, Robert East as Alfred Crackenthorpe, David Waller as Chief Inspector Duckham, Mona Bruce as Elspeth McGillicuddy and even David Horovitch as Inspector Slack. Slack may have struck me as an annoying character, but I cannot deny that Horovitch gave a competent performance.

Another aspect of "4.50 FROM PADDINGTON" that impressed me was its production design. Raymond Cusick did a first rate job in transforming television viewers back to the mid-to-late 1950s. He was ably supported by Judy Pepperdine's convincing costumes - especially for Jill Eager and Joanna David's characters. I was not that impressed by most of John Walker's photography. However, I must admit that along with Martyn Friend's direction, Walker injected a great deal of atmosphere and mystery into the scene featuring the murder that Mrs. McGillicuddy witnessed.

It really pains me to say this, but despite Hickson's first rate performance and the production design, "4.50 FROM PADDINGTON"does not strike me as one of the best Miss Marple movies to feature the late actress. Another version was made in 2004 and quite frankly, it was not an improvement. Hopefully, someone will make a first-rate adaptation of one of my favorite Christie novels

"EMMA" (1972) Review

 

"EMMA" (1972) Review

I am aware of at least four adaptation of Jane Austen's 1815 novel, "Emma". But I have noticed that the one adaptation that rarely attracts the attention of the novelist's fans is the 1972 BBC miniseries, "EMMA". 

Directed by John Glenister and adapted by Denis Constanduros, "EMMA" told the story of the precocious younger daughter of a wealthy landowner that resides near 
the village of Highbury. Emma Woodhouse imagines herself to be naturally gifted matchmaker, following her self-declared success in arranging a love match between her governess and Mr. Weston, a village widower. Following their marriage, Emma takes it upon herself to find an eligible match for her new friend, a young woman named Harriet Smith. However, Emma's efforts to match Harriet with Highbury's vicar, Mr. Elton, end in disaster. Also the return of two former Highbury residents, Jane Fairfax and Mr. Weston's son, Frank Churchill, and her continuing efforts to find a husband for Harriet leads Emma to question her talents as a matchmaker and her feelings for long time neighbor and friend, George Knightley.

Aired in six episodes, this "EMMA" was given the opportunity to be a lot more faithful to Austen's novel. Many critics and fans would view this as an example of the miniseries' ability to delve deeper into the story's plots and characterizations. I do not know if I would agree. The 1815 novel seems such a strong piece of work that even a 90 to 120 minute film could do justice to the story by adhering to the main aspects of the plot. Mind you, I have complained about Andrew Davies' adaptation of the novel in the 1996-97 television movie. But even I cannot consider that a failure.

I do have a few complaints about "EMMA". The majority of my complaints have to do with the casting. But there were some aspects of the production that I found less than satisfying. Director John Glenister's direction of major scenes such as the Westons' Christmas party and the Crown Inn ball failed to impress. The sequence featuring the Westons' Christmas party lacked the holiday atmosphere that I found in the other versions. And I failed to noticed any sense of a change in the weather that led the Woodhouses and the Knightleys to depart from Randalls (the Westons' estate) earlier than they had intended. As for the Crown Inn ball, it struck me as somewhat rushed. Dialogue seemed to dominate the entire sequence . . . to the point where only one dance was featured to the tune of the miniseries' theme song. Both Glenister and screenwriter Denis Constanduros made such a big effort in building up the ball in the previous episode or two. But when it came to the actual execution, it simply fell flat and rushed for me. Even worse, they failed to provide the audience with the Emma/Knightley dance, which could have provided the first real hint of romantic feelings between the pair. And what happened to Jane Fairfax and Mr. Elton at the Box Hill picnic? Where were they? Frank Churchill's flirting with Emma during the picnic had led to Jane's eventual breakdown and observations of the Eltons' quick marriage. The Box Hill sequence played an important part in Jane and Frank's relationship. But without Jane in the scene, the importance of their storyline was somewhat robbed.

And there were performances, or should I say . . . casting that seemed rather off to me. Fiona Walker made an interesting Mrs. Augusta Elton. In fact, she was downright memorable. However, her Mrs. Elton came off as rather heavy-handed . . . to the point that she seemed more like an over-the-top 1970s divorcee, instead of a vicar's pushy and ambitious wife of Regency England. She seemed to lack both Juliet Stevenson and Christina Cole's talent for sly and subtle humor. Belinda Tighe gave a solid performance as Emma's older sister, Isabella Knightley. But she seemed at least a decade-and-a-half older than Doran Godwin's Emma. Donald Eccles would have made a perfect Mr. Woodhouse, if he had not come off as slightly cold in a few scenes. I find it odd that many Austen fans had complained of Godwin's occasionally chilly performance. But Eccles seemed even more chilly at times, which is how I never would describe Mr. Woodhouse. At least Godwin's Emma became warmer and slightly funny in the miniseries' second half. It seemed as if the arrival of Augusta Elton allowed Godwin to inject more warmth and humor into the role. I also had a problem with Ania Marson as the reserved Jane Fairfax. I understand that Jane went through a great deal of stress and fear, while awaiting for a chance to finally marry Frank. But Marson's performance struck me as . . . odd. The intense look in her eyes and frozen expression made her resemble a budding serial killer.

I really enjoyed Robert East's portrayal of the mercurial Frank Churchill. Although I felt that East did not seem effective in his portrayal of Frank's penchant for cruel humor and at times, his handling of the character's many traits seemed a bit off balanced, I still believe that his performance was overall, first-rate. Timothy Peters was excellent as Mr. Elton. In fact, he was spot on. Of all the characters featured in Austen's novel, Mr. Elton seemed to be the only that has been perfectly cast in all four productions I have seen. I really enjoyed Debbie Bowen's performance as the slightly naive Harriet Smith. In fact, I believe she was the perfect embodiment of Harriet. One of the funniest scenes in the entire miniseries featured Harriet's efforts to make up her mind on which color ribbons she wanted to purchase. And Constance Chapman made an excellent Miss Bates. She perfectly conveyed all of the character's likeability and verbosity that made her irritable to Emma. And the scene that featured Emma's attempt to apologize for the insult during the Box Hill picnic was beautifully acted by Chapman. 

But I was impressed by John Carson's performance as George Knightley. Perhaps he seemed a bit old for the role, at age 45. But he perfectly conveyed all of Mr. Knightley's warmth, dry humor and love for Emma. And surprisingly, he and Doran Godwin had a strong screen chemistry. I also have to give credit to Doran Godwin for a first-rate portrayal of Emma Woodhouse. Mind you, there were times in the first three episodes when she seemed a bit too chilly for the gregarious Emma. But Godwin did an excellent job in developing the character into a more mature young woman, who became mindful of her flaws. And as I had stated earlier, her Emma also became warmer and slightly funnier upon the introduction of Augusta Elton.

There were also aspects of the miniseries' production that I enjoyed. Aside from the Weston Christmas party, I was very impressed by Tim Harvey's production designs. The miniseries' photography seemed crisp and colorful, even after 39 years. I found this impressive, considering that most BBC television miniseries between 1971 and 1986 seemed to fade over the years. I also liked Joan Ellacott's costume designs - especially for Emma and Jane. However, I noticed that the high lace featured in some of Emma's dresses seemed a bit theatrical and cheap . . . as if they came off outfits found in some minor costume warehouse.

Yes, I do have some quibbles regarding the production and casting for "EMMA". After all, there is no such thing as perfect. But the good definitely outweighed the bad. And for a miniseries with six episodes, I can happily say that it failed to bore me. Personally, I think it is the best Jane Austen adaptation from the 1970s and 1980s I have ever seen.

"EVIL UNDER THE SUN" (2001) Review

 

"EVIL UNDER THE SUN" (2001) Review

There have been four adaptations of Agatha Christie's 1941 novel, "Evil Under the Sun". One version was a radio play that broadcast in 1999. The Adventure Company released its own adaptation in 2007. John Bradbourne and Richard Goodwin released a movie version in 1982. However, the adaptation that has recently caught my attention is the 2001 television movie that aired on ITV's "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT". 

While dining at his friend Captain Arthur Hasting's new Argentine restaurant, Belgian detective Hercule Poirot suffered a sudden collapse. His doctor revealed that Poirot need to lose weight or risk a heart condition. Both the doctor and the detective's secretary, Miss Lemon, booked Poirot at a health resort on the coast of Devon called Sandy Cove. Miss Lemon also insisted that Captain Hastings accompany him.

At the Sandy Cove Resort, both Poirot and Hastings came across the usual assortment of guests. Among them was a well-known stage actress named Arlena Stuart The hotel hosts the usual assortment of guests but also includes a well known actress, Arlena Stuart Marshall. Many of the guests disliked Arlena, including her new husband, Captain Kenneth Marshall and her 17 year-old stepson, Lionel. Another guest, Mrs. Christina Redfern harbored jealousy over Arlena's indiscreet affair with hubby Patrick. Well-known dressmaker Rosamund Darnley, was an old flame of Captain Marshall, and also harbored jealousy toward Arlena. A fanatical vicar named the Reverend Stephen Lane viewed Arlena as the embodiment of evil. An athletic spinster named Emily Brewster harbored resentment toward Arlena for bailing out on a play she had invested. The only guests who seemed to harbor any feeling regarding Arlena were a Major Barry and a Mr. Horace Blatt. But both seemed to be involved in some mysterious activities around the resort's island - including the location where Arlena had been waiting to meet for a clandestine lover. When Arlena's body was discovered strangled, Poirot and Hastings worked with Scotland Yard inspector Japp to investigate the crime.

When I was younger, I had read Christie's novel on a few occasions. I tried to enjoy the novel. I really did. I understood that it was a favorite among Christie fans. But I never rouse any enthusiasm for the story. There was something about it that struck me as rather flat. This 2001 television adaptation seemed to be an improvement over the novel. Perhaps a visual representation on the television screen made it easier for me to appreciate the story. I certainly cannot deny that Rob Hinds' production designs struck me as colorful and sleek - a perfect continuation of the Art Deco style that has dominated the "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" since the beginning. I was also impressed by Charlotte Holdich's sleek costume designs for the cast - especially the female characters. Overall, "EVIL UNDER THE SUN" proved to be eye-candy for those who usually enjoy television and movie productions with a 1930s setting.

The subplot involving Poirot's health certainly made it easier for me to understand why he would vacation at a not-so-interesting hotel resort. To be honest, I could not see someone like the flashy Arlena Marshall being a guest at such a low-key location. Screenwriter Anthony Horowitz made a wise choice in transforming Arlena's 16 year-old stepdaughter Linda Marshall, who studied magic; into a 17 year-old boy, studying poisons. Arlena had been strangled. And Scotland Yard made it clear that large hands had been responsible for the crime. The idea of a 16 year-old girls with man-size hands struck me as slightly improbable. After all, if Christie wanted Linda to be considered as a serious suspect, she should have changed the character's gender, which Horowitz did; or find another method to kill off Arlena Stuart.

The above mentions changes in Christie's story - Poirot's health problems and the transformations of the Linda/Lionel Marshall character - seemed like improvements over the original story. However, other changes made it impossible for me to love this adaptation. I understand why the series' producers and Horowitz had decided to include Hastings, Japp and Lemon into the story. After all, the Eighth Series, which aired in 2001 and 2001, proved to be the last that featured these two characters. But none of them had appeared in the novel. Hastings' presence only gave Poirot a pretext for vacationing at Sandy Cove in the first place. Unfortunately, the running joke about Poirot's distaste toward the resort's health-conscious menu for its guests became tiresome within one-third of the movie. Other than the Argentine restaurant sequence, Horowitz failed to make Hastings' presence relevant to the story. And why on earth was Chief Inspector Japp investigating a murder in Devon? He was out of Scotland Yard's jurisdiction, which was limited to Greater London; which included the home counties of Essex and Hertfordshire in the East of England; and of Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Surrey and Kent in South East England. In other words . . . what in the hell was Japp doing there? Miss Lemon proved to be the only veteran recurring cast member that proved to be relevant to the story. She helped Poirot investigate another murder case with connections to Arlena Stuart's murderer.

The cast proved to be solid. But I could not recall any memorable performances. The four main cast members - David Suchet, Hugh Fraser, Philip Jackson and Pauline Moran - were competent as usual. I was also impressed by Michael Higgs (Patrick Redfern), Carolyn Pickles (Emily Brewster), Ian Thompson (Major Barry), Tamzin Malleson (Christine Redfern) and especially Russell Tovey (Lionel Marshall). But there were performances that failed to rock my boat. David Mallinson's portrayal of Kenneth Marshall struck me . . . meh. He was not terrible, but simply not that interesting. Marsha Fitzalan's performance as Rosamund Darnley seemed off. Her portrayal of the dressmaker struck me as gossipy and callow. She seemed like an early 20th century version of her old role, Caroline Bingley, instead of the warm and strong-willed Rosamund. Both Tim Meats and David Timson's performances struck me as slightly hammy, which struck me as rather off for such a low-key production. But the real worm in the apple proved to be Louise Delamere's portrayal of victim Arlena Marshall. I realize that Delamere was given a role that seemed the least interesting in Christie's novel. But Horowitz's script and Delamere's performance failed to improve upon it. Delamere ended up projecting a fourth-rate version of Diana Rigg's performance in the 1982 film.

Overall, "EVIL UNDER THE SUN" proved to be a mixed bag. Production wise, it looked sleek and colorful. The script provided a few improvements over Christie's novel. And there were some first-rate performances that included David Suchet. But in the end, I felt the movie was slightly undermined by other changes that I found unnecessary and some not-so impressive performances.

"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" (1981) Review

 

"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" (1981) Review

Jane Austen's 1811 novel, "Sense and Sensibility" has been a favorite with her modern-day fans. The novel has produced at least three television and two movie adaptations and a literary parody. However, this review is about the seven-part, 1981 BBC adaptation. 

Directed by Rodney Bennett and adapted by Alexander Baron and Denis Constanduros, "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" starred Irene Richards and Tracey Childs as the two main protagonists - sisters Elinor and Marianne Dashwood. The story focused on the sisters' attempts to find happiness in the tightly structured society of early 19th century England. Through their experiences with men and their relationship with each other, Elinor and Marianne learn that one must strive for a balance of both sense and sensibility.

From an overall point of view, this "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" seemed to be a solid adaptation of Austen's 1811 novel. I have noticed in many articles and reviews of Austen adaptations made in the 1970s and 1980s, fans tend to view them as "faithful"in compare to later ones. Frankly, I have yet to see an Austen adaptation made before or after 1986 as completely faithful. And I can extend this opinion to this 1981 production. One, Baron and Constanduros' screenplay began with the grieving Dashwood women returning to Norland Hall, after viewing a potential new home. And there is no sign of a Margaret Dashwood - the youngest of the three sisters - in sight. But since the other versions of the novel are no more or less faithful, I do not have a problem with this. But I did have a problem with the miniseries' ending. It featured Edward Ferrars asking for Elinor's hand in marriage and Colonel Brandon commencing his courtship of a receptive Marianne. That is it. The ending seemed a bit too abrupt for my tastes.

And I had other problems with "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY". I realize that the male characters in Austen's novel were not as strongly written as the female characters. But the uninspiring casting in this production made their roles seem even weaker. I am sorry to say that neither Robert Swann or Bosco Hogan as Colonel Brandon and Edward Ferrars had impressed me. Both seemed rather solid, but lackluster in their roles. Peter Woodward gave a charming performance as the novel's ne'er-do-well, John Willoughby. Unfortunately, Woodward's presence barely made a dent in the production. And his biggest scene - in which Willoughby expressed remorse for his bad treatment of Marianne to Elinor - featured some over-the-top acting. But not all of the male performers disappointed me. 

Watching Diana Fairfax's performance as Mrs. Dashwood, I found myself wondering why Elinor was forced to assume so much responsibility for their household at Barton Cottage. Fairfax's Mrs. Dashwood seemed nothing like the emotional widow who was forced to come down to earth by her more sensible older daughter. She seemed just as sensible in her own way. Annie Leon's portrayal of Mrs. Jennings struck me as pleasant, affable and very supportive of the Dashwood sisters. But there was something missing in her performance. She seemed subdued in compare to Austen's portrayal of the character. Leon's Mrs. Jennings failed to be the nosy, cheeful vulgarian that I had come to love. I barely remember Marjorie Bland's portrayal of Mrs. Jennings' older daughter, Lady Middleton. She failed to leave a mark in my memories. I could say the same about Hetty Baynes as Mrs. Jennings' younger daughter, Mrs. Charlotte Palmer. And Margot Van der Burgh's Mrs. Ferrars seemed more like a dress rehearsal for Lady Catherine de Bourgh in Austen's "Pride and Prejudice".

But there were performances that impressed me. Julia Chambers and Pippa Sparks made a very entertaining Lucy and Ann Steele. I was especially impressed by Chambers' performance, which struck a fine balance between Lucy's scheming and desperation to become a member of the respectable and wealthy Ferrars family. Philip Bowen's portrayal of Robert Ferrars struck me as rather funny. He gave the character a foppish edge that I have never seen in other portrayals of the character. Donald Douglas was certainly down-to-earth in an affable manner as Mrs. Dashwood's cousin, Sir John Middleton. Amanda Boxer gave a spot-on portrayal of the cold-blooded and domineering Fanny Dashwood. But the one performance that really impressed me was Peter Gale's as the Dashwood family's new patriarch, John. Although he gave a solid performance in the miniseries' early episodes, he really came into his own in the role, when the story shifted to London. I was especially impressed by one scene in which Gale's John tried to point out the suitability of Colonel Brandon as a match for Elinor. Both Irene Richards and Tracey Childs gave solid performances as Elinor and Marianne Dashwood. The two actresses did a first-rate job of holding the miniseries together as the the leads. And both were somewhat spot-on in their portrayal of the two sisters. Mind you, I would have liked if Richards had revealed the passion that Elinor harbored for Edward in small moments. And I wish that Childs' Marianne was not so sober - especially in a few scenes in the miniseries' earlier episodes. But in the end, they did a good job.

As far as production design goes, I am afraid that Paul Joel did a solid job. But there was nothing about his work that I found particularly impressive. I suspect that he may have been hampered by the budget. I was NOT impressed by Dorothea Wallace's costumes. Frankly, I found them rather cheap looking and in some cases, slightly ill fitting. Like the miniseries' production design, it was probably hampered by the budget. Overall, I would have to say that this "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" was the least impressive looking adaptation I have ever seen.

"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" had its virtues. Both Irene Richards and Tracey Childs gave solid performances and kept this production together, along with director Rodney Bennett. The supporting cast also included memorable performances from the likes of Peter Gale, Amanda Boxer, Donald Douglas, Julia Chambers and Peter Woodward. And screenwriters Alexander Baron and Denis Constanduros managed to create a solid script that was nearly faithful to the story. But due to a good number of disappointing performances and a rather cheap looking production, this is probably my least favorite adaptation.

"MILDRED PIERCE" (2011) Review

 

"MILDRED PIERCE" (2011) Review

When HBO first revealed its plans to air an adaptation of James M. Cain's 1941 novel, "Mildred Pierce", many people had reacted in some very interesting ways. Some seemed thrilled by the idea of a new version of Cain's story. But there were many who were not thrilled by the idea. And I suspect that this negative response had a lot to do with the first adaptation. 

Sixty-six years ago, Warner Brothers Studios had released its own adaptation of the novel. Directed by Michael Curtiz, the movie starred Joan Crawford in the title role and Ann Blyth as her older daughter, Veda. The movie received several Academy Award nominations and a Best Actress statuette for Crawford. Due to the film's success and lasting popularity, many fans and critics viewed it as a definitive adaptation of one of Cain's works. So, when they learned about HBO's plans for a new version, many regarded the news with scorn. After all, how could any remake be just as good or superior to the classic Hollywood film?

Was "MILDRED PIERCE" as a miniseries just as good or better than the 1945 movie? I will give my opinion on that topic later. I will say that I truly enjoyed both versions. The miniseries benefited from Todd Haynes serving as the director, one of the producers and one of the writers. Oscar winning actress, Kate Winslet portrayed the title role. The miniseries also possessed a talented supporting cast that included Guy Pearce, Melissa Leo, Brían F. O'Byrne, Mare Winningham, James Le Gros; along with Evan Rachel Wood ("TRUE BLOOD") and Morgan Turner. And I cannot deny that I found the miniseries' production designs first-rate, despite a few quibbles. But I have come across a good number of movies or television productions with everything in its favor that still failed to win me over in the end. Fortunately, "MILDRED PIERCE" did the opposite.

Todd Haynes had pointed out that his new miniseries would be more faithful to Cain's novel than the 1945 movie. And he was good on his word. The biggest differences between the Michael Curtiz movie and Haynes' new miniseries were the running times and the lack of a murder mystery in the miniseries. That is correct. Monty Beragon was never murdered in the novel and he certainly was not murdered in the new version. There were no flashbacks on Mildred's life, following her divorce from her first (and third) husband, Bert Pierce. And I am grateful to Todd Haynes for sparing the viewers that nonsense and sticking closer to Cain's plot. I believed that the murder plot unnecessarily dragged the Curtiz movie. And Haynes' miniseries was long enough. Due to the lack of a murder mystery, the miniseries retained Cain's slightly bleaker ending. Much to the dismay of many fans.

Since Haynes had decided to stick a little closer to the novel, the miniseries covered the story's entire time span of 1931 to 1940. Which meant that "MILDRED PIERCE" gave viewers a bird's eye view of the Depression's impact upon Southern Californians like the Pierce family. Part One began in 1931 with Mildred preparing a pie to sell to one of her neighbors. Husband Bert has joined the ranks of the broke and unemployed, thanks to the 1929 Wall Street Crash and the economic hijinks of his former business partner and friend, Wally Burgan. Bert seemed to spend most of his days engaged with chores like mowing the lawn or in an affair with a neighbor named Maggie Biderhof. Bert's announcement that he might spend another afternoon and evening with Mrs. Biderhof proves to be the last straw for Mildred. The couple have a heated quarrel that ends with Bert's departure from the family and eventually, a divorce. 

Mildred realizes that she needs a steady income to support their two daughters, Veda and Ray. Unfortunately, Veda lacks any experience for a position outside of customer service. And being enamored of her upper-middle-class status, the idea of being a waitress, maid or housekeeper is abhorrent to Mildred. She also knows that such professions are abhorrent to her pretentious and class-conscious daughter, Veda. After rejecting jobs as housemaid to the future wife of a Hollywood director and waitress at a tea parlor, the realities of the Depression finally leads a desperate Mildred to take a job as waitress at a Hollywood diner. Unfortunately, Veda learns about the new job, which leads mother and daughter to their first major quarrel and Mildred's decision to make plans to open a restaurant. The quarrel also marked the real beginning of what proved to be the story's backbone - namely Mildred and Veda's tumultuous relationship.

As much as I admire "MILDRED PIERCE", it does have its flaws. I would view some of them as minor. But I consider at least one or two of them as major. One of the small problems proved to be Haynes' decision to shoot the miniseries in New York, instead of Southern California. Aside from Mildred's Glendale neighborhood, most of the locations in the miniseries do not scream "Southern California" - including the beach locations. The director claimed that he had chosen the area around New York City, because it was more cost-efficient than shooting around Los Angeles. He also claimed that it would be difficult to find "Old L.A." within the city today. Speaking as an Angeleno who has spent many weekends driving around the city, I found these excuses hard to swallow. Los Angeles and many other Southern California neighborhoods have plenty of locations that could have been used for the production. And could someone explain how filming around New York was cheaper than Los Angeles?

"MILDRED PIERCE" has received charges of slow pacing and an unnecessarily long running time. I have nothing against"MILDRED PIERCE" being shown in a miniseries format. But I have two quibbles regarding the pacing. One, the sequence featuring Mildred's job hunt dragged unnecessarily long. Haynes filled this segment with many long and silent shots of a pensive Mildred staring into the distant or dragging her body along the streets of Glendale and Los Angeles. I am aware that Haynes was trying to convey some kind of message with these shots. Unfortunately, I am not intellectually inclined and the sequence merely ignited my impatience. On the other hand, the speed in which Haynes continued Mildred's story in Episode Three left my head spinning. Aside from the sequence featuring the opening of Mildred's first restaurant, I felt that the episode moved a bit too fast . . . especially since so much happened to Mildred during the two to three year time span. I would have preferred if Episode Three had a running time of slightly over an hour - like Episodes Four and Five.

Complaints aside, this "MILDRED PIERCE" struck me as truly first-rate. As much as I had enjoyed the 1945 movie, I thank God that Todd Haynes did not add that ludicrous murder mystery into the plot. Cain's novel was not about Veda getting her comeuppance for being an ungrateful daughter to a hard-working mother. The story was about a resilient woman, who was also plagued by her personal flaws - which she refused to overcome, let alone acknowledge. Some viewers and critics have expressed confusion over Mildred's continuing obsession over her older daughter. Others have deliberately blinded themselves from Mildred's flaws and dumped all of the blame for her downfall entirely upon the heads of others - especially Veda. But there have been viewers and critics who managed to understand and appreciate the miniseries' portrayal of Mildred. I certainly did.

I have never understood the complaints that "MILDRED PIERCE" had failed to explain Mildred's unwavering obsession over Veda. I thought that Haynes perfectly revealed the reasons behind her obsession. First of all, he revealed those traits that both mother and daughter shared in numerous scenes - aspirations for entry into the upper-class, desire for wealth, snobbery, and a talent for manipulating others. Mildred's refusal to consider those jobs at a tea parlor and as the pretentious Mrs. Forrester's maid struck me as signs of her ego blinding her from the precarious state of her family's financial situation. And when she finally caved in to becoming a waitress at a Hollywood diner, Mildred considered quitting, because her sensibilities (or ego) could not fathom working in such a profession. Her contempt toward others suffering from the Depression after the successful opening of her Glendale restaurant was expressed in a scene with upper-class playboy Monty Beragon. Episode Five revealed her manipulation of Monty into marrying her . . . in order to lure Veda back to her seemed pretty obvious. But one scene not only revealed the core of Mildred's character, but also the miniseries' theme. While despairing over her decision to become a waitress at the end of Episode One, Mildred said this to neighbor Lucy Gessler:

"She (Veda) has something in her that I thought I had and now I find I don't. Pride or nobility or whatever it is. For both my girls, I want them to have all the cake in the world."

Judging from Mildred's comments, it was not difficult for me to see that she viewed Veda as an extension of herself and in some degrees, better. I believe that the quote also hinted Mildred's personal insecurities about living among the upper-class. This insecurity was revealed in a scene from Episode Three in which Mildred appeared at a polo field in Pasadena to pick up Veda, who was bidding her "babysitter" Monty good-bye. So, this argument that Haynes had failed to explain Mildred's enabling behavior toward Veda simply does not ring true with me.

Despite my complaint about Haynes' decision to shoot "MILDRED PIERCE" in New York, I must admit that I found myself impressed by Mark Friedberg's production designs. The miniseries' setting did not have a Southern California feel to me, but Friedberg certainly did an excellent job of re-creating the 1930s. He was ably supported by Peter Rogness' art designs and Ellen Christiansen's set decorations. But aside from Friedberg's work, the biggest contribution to the miniseries' Thirties look came from Ann Roth's costume designs. Not only did she provide the right costumes for the years between 1931 and 1940, she also ensured that the costumes would adhere to the characters' social positions and personalities. For example, both Roth and Haynes wisely insisted that Kate Winslet wear the same dowdy, brown print dress during Mildred's job hunt in Episode One. One last person whom I believe contributed to the miniseries' look and style was cinematographer Edward Lachman. If I must be honest, I was more impressed by Lachman's photography of various intimate scenes reflecting the characters' emotions or situations than any panoramic shot he had made. I was especially impressed by Lachman's work in Episode One's last scene and the Episode Five sequence featuring Veda's betrayal of Mildred.

Along with Todd Haynes' direction, it was the cast led by the uber-talented Kate Winslet that truly made "MILDRED PIERCE" memorable. First of all, the miniseries featured brief appearances from the likes of Richard Easton and Ronald Guttman, who each gave a colorful performance as Veda's music teachers during different periods in the story. Hope Davis was deliciously haughty as the Los Angeles socialite-turned-movie producer's wife with whom Mildred has two unpleasant encounters. In the 1945 movie, Eve Arden portrayed the character of Ida Corwin, which was a blend of two characters from Cain's novel - Mildred's neighbor Lucy Gessler and her diner co-worker Ida Corwin. The recent miniseries included both characters into the production. Fresh on the heels of her Oscar win, Melissa Leo gave an engaging performance as Mildred's cheerful and wise friend/neighbor, Lucy Gessler, who provided plenty of advice on the former's personal life. Aside from a two-episode appearance in the last season of "24", I have not seen Mare Winningham in quite a while. It was good to see her portray Mildred's blunt and business-savy friend and colleague, Ida Corwin.

At least three actors portrayed the men in Mildred's life - James LeGros, Brían F. O'Byrne and Guy Pearce. Although his sense of humor was not as sharp as Jack Carson's in 1945, I must admit that LeGros managed to provide some memorably humrous moments as Wally Burgan, Mildred's business adviser and temporary lover. Two of my favorite Wally moments turned out to be his reaction to the news of Mildred's breakup from her husband and to the revelation of her romance with Monty Beragon. Brían F. O'Byrne earned an Emmy nomination as Mildred's ex-husband, Bert Pierce. What I admired by O'Byrne's performance was the gradual ease in which he transformed Bert's character from a self-involved philanderer to a supportive mate by the end of the series. But the most remarkable performance came from Guy Pearce, who won a well-deserved Emmy for his performance as Monty Beragon, Mildred's Pasadena playboy lover and later, second husband. Thankfully, Pearce managed to avoid portraying Monty as some one-note villain and instead, captured both the good and the bad of his character's nuance - Monty's friendly nature, his condescension toward Mildred's class status, his seductive skills that kept her satisfied for nearly two years, his occasional bouts of rudeness and the hurt-filled realization that Mildred had used him to win back Veda.

Two remarkable young actresses portrayed Veda Pierce, the heroine's monstrous and talented older daughter. Morgan Turner portrayed Veda from age eleven to thirteen and I must say that she did a first-rate job. In the first three episodes, Turner convincingly developed Veda from a pretentious, yet still bearable eleven year-old to an ambitious girl in her early teens who has developed a deep contempt toward her mother. My only problem with Turner's performance were the few moments when her Veda seemed too much like an adult in a child's body. Evan Rachel Wood benefited from portraying Veda between the ages of 17 and 20. Therefore, her performance never struck me as slightly odd. However, she miss the opportunity to portray the development of Veda's monstrous personality. But that lost opportunity did not take away Wood's superb performance. Despite the awfulness of Veda's character, I must hand it to the young actress for injecting some semblance of ambiguity. Aside from portraying Veda's monstrous personality, Wood did an excellent job of conveying Veda's frustration with Mildred's overbearing love and the end of her own ambitions as a concert pianist.

I have been a fan of Kate Winslet since I first saw her in 1995's "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY". There have been and still are many talented actors and actresses with the ability to portray multifaceted characters. But I believe that Winselt is one of the few who are able to achieve this with great subtlety. Her portrayal of Glendale housewife-turned-entrepreneur Mildred Pierce is a prize example of her talent for acting in complex and ambiguous roles. Superficially, her Mildred Pierce was a long-suffering and hard-working woman, who overcame a failed marriage to become a successful entrepreneur . . . all for the love of her two daughters. Winslet not only portrayed these aspects of Mildred's character with great skill, but also conveyed the character's darker aspects, which I had already listed in this article. She more than earned that Emmy award for Best Actress in a Miniseries.

Although many have expressed admiration for "MILDRED PIERCE", these same fans and critics seemed to have done so with a good deal of reluctance or complaints. I will be the first to admit that the miniseries has its flaws. But I do not find them excessive. This reluctance to express full admiration for "MILDRED PIERCE" culminated in its loss for the Best Miniseries Emmy to the British import, "DOWNTON ABBEY". I had objected to this loss on the grounds that the British drama - a television series - was nominated in the wrong category; and that I believe "MILDRED PIERCE" was slightly superior.

Flawed or not, I believe that Todd Haynes did a superb job in adapting James M. Cain's novel. He wisely adhered to the literary source as close as possible, allowing viewers a more complex and ambiguous look into the Mildred Pierce character. Also, Haynes had a first-rate cast led by the incomparable Kate Winslet. As much as I love the 1945 movie, I must admit that this recent miniseries turned out to be a superior production. My admiration for Todd Haynes as a filmmaker has been solidified.

JANE AUSTEN's Rogue Gallery

  

Below is a look at the fictional rogues - male and female - created by Jane Austen in the six published novels written by her. So, without further ado . . . 


JANE AUSTEN'S ROGUE GALLERY

   

John Willoughby - "Sense and Sensibility" (1811)

John Willoughby is a handsome young single man with a small estate, but has expectations of inheriting his aunt's large estate. Also, Willoughby driven by the his own pleasures, whether amusing himself with whatever woman crossed his path, or via marrying in order to obtain wealth to fuel his profligate ways. He does not value emotional connection and is willing to give up Marianne Dashwood, his true love, for more worldly objects. Although not my favorite rogue, I feel that Willoughby is Austen's most successful rogue, because he was able to feel remorse and regret for his rejection of Marianne by the end of the story. This makes him one of Austen's most complex rogues. Here are the actors that portrayed John Willoughby:



1. Clive Francis (1971) - I must admit that I did not find him particularly memorable as Willoughby. In fact, my memories of his performance is very vague. 




2. Peter Woodward (1981) - I first became aware of Woodward during his brief stint on the sci-fi series, "CRUSADE". He was also slightly memorable as Willoughby, although I did not find his take on the character as particularly roguish. His last scene may have been a bit hammy, but otherwise, I found him tolerable.




3. Greg Wise (1995) - He was the first actor I saw portray Willoughby . . . and he remains my favorite. His Willoughby was both dashing and a little bit cruel. And I loved that he managed to conveyed the character's regret over rejecting Marianne without any dialogue whatsoever.





4. Dominic Cooper (2008) - Many television critics made a big deal about his portrayal of Willoughby, but I honestly did not see the magic. However, I must admit that he gave a pretty good performance, even if his Willoughby came off as a bit insidious at times.




   

George Wickham - "Pride and Prejudice" (1813)

George Wickham is an old childhood friend of hero Fitzwilliam Darcy and the son of the Darcy family's steward, whose dissipate ways estranged the pair. He is introduced into the story as a handsome and superficially charming commissioned militia officer in Meryton, who quickly charms and befriends the heroine, Elizabeth Bennet, after learning of her dislike of Darcy. Wickham manages to charm the entire Meryton neighborhood, before they realize that they have a snake in their midst. Elizabeth eventually learns of Wickham's attempt to elope with the young Georgiana Darcy. Unfortunately, he manages to do the same with her younger sister, Lydia, endangering the Bennet family's reputation. He could have been the best of Austen's rogues, if it were not for his stupid decision to elope with Lydia, a young woman whose family would be unable to provide him with a well-endowed dowry. Because I certainly cannot see him choosing him as a traveling bed mate, while he evade creditors. Here are the actors that portrayed George Wickham:




1. Edward Ashley-Cooper (1940) - This Australian actor was surprisingly effective as the smooth talking Wickham. He was handsome, charming, witty and insidious. I am surprised that his portrayal is not that well known.





2. Peter Settelen (1980) - He made a charming Wickham, but his performance came off as a bit too jovial for me to take him seriously as a rogue.





3. Adrian Lukis (1995) - His Wickham is, without a doubt, is my favorite take on the character. He is not as handsome as the other actors who have portrayed the role; but he conveyed all of the character's attributes with sheer perfection.





4. Rupert Friend (2005) - I think that he was hampered by director Joe Wright's script and failed to become an effective Wickham. In fact, I found his portrayal almost a waste of time.




  

Henry Crawford - "Mansfield Park" (1814)

I think that one of the reasons I have such difficulties in enjoying "MANSFIELD PARK" is that I found Austen's portrayal of the roguish Henry Crawford rather uneven. He is originally portrayed as a ladies' man who takes pleasure in seducing women. But after courting heroine Fanny Price, he falls genuinely in love with her and successfully manages to mend his ways. But Fanny's rejection of him (due to her love of cousin Edmund Bertram) lead him to begin an affair with Edmund's sister, Maria Rushworth and is labeled permanently by Austen as a reprobate. This entire storyline failed to alienate me toward Henry. I just felt sorry for him, because Fanny was not honest enough to reveal why she had rejected him. Here are the actors that portrayed Henry Crawford:




1. Robert Burbage (1983) - As I had stated in a review of the 1983 miniseries, I thought his take on Henry Crawford reminded me of an earnest schoolboy trying to act like a seducer. Sorry, but I was not impressed.




2. Alessandro Nivola (1999) - In my opinion, his portrayal of Henry was the best. He managed to convey the seductive qualities of the character, his gradual transformation into an earnest lover and the anger he felt at being rejected. Superb performance.




3. Joseph Beattie (2007) - His performance was pretty solid and convincing. However, there were a few moments when his Henry felt more like a stalker than a seducer. But in the end, he gave a pretty good performance.




  

Mary Crawford - "Mansfield Park" (1814)

Ah yes! Mary Crawford. I never could understand why Jane Austen eventually painted her as a villainess (or semi-villainess) in"MANSFIELD PARK". As the sister of Henry Crawford, she shared his tastes for urbane airs, tastes, wit (both tasteful and ribald) and an interest in courtship. She also took an unexpected shine to the shy Fanny Price, while falling in love with the likes of Edmund Bertram. However, Edmund planned to become a clergyman, something she could not abide. Mary was not perfect. She could be superficial at times and a bit too manipulative for her own good. If I must be honest, she reminds me too much of Dolly Levi, instead of a woman of low morals. Here are the actresses who portrayed Mary Crawford:





1. Jackie Smith-Wood (1983) - She gave a delightful and complex performance as Mary Crawford. I practically found myself wishing that "MANSFIELD PARK" had been a completely different story, with her as the heroine. Oh well. We cannot have everything.




2. Embeth Davidtz (1999) - Her portrayal of Mary was just as delightful and complex as Smith-Wood. Unfortunately for the actress, writer-director Patricia Rozema wrote a scene that featured a ridiculous and heavy-handed downfall for Mary. Despite that, she was still superb and held her own against Frances O'Connor's more livelier Fanny.




3. Hayley Atwell (2007) - After seeing her performance as Mary, I began to suspect that any actress worth her salt can do wonders with the role. This actress was one of the bright spots in the 2007 lowly regarded version of Austen's novel. Mind you, her portrayal was a little darker than the other two, but I still enjoyed her portrayal.



   

Frank Churchill - "Emma" (1815)

Frank Churchill was the son of one of Emma Woodhouse's neighbors by a previous marriage. He was an amiable young man whom everyone, except Mr. George Knightley, who considered him quite immature. After his mother's death he was raised by his wealthy aunt and uncle, whose last name he took. Frank may be viewed simply as careless, shallow, and little bit cruel in his mock disregard for his real fiancee, Jane Fairfax. But I find it difficult to view him as a villain. Here are the actors who portrayed Frank Churchill:



1. Robert East (1972) - It is hard to believe that this actor was 39-40 years old, when he portrayed Frank Churchill in this miniseries. He did a pretty good job, but there were a few moments when his performance seemed a bit uneven.




2. Ewan McGregor (1996) - He did a pretty good job, but his performance was hampered by Douglas McGrath's script, which only focused upon Frank's efforts to hide his engagement to Jane Fairfax.





3. Raymond Coulthard (1996-97) - In my opinion, he gave the best performance as Frank. The actor captured all of the character's charm, humor, and perversity on a very subtle level.




4. Rupert Evans (2009) - He was pretty good as Frank, but there were times when his performance became a little heavy-handed, especially in later scenes that featured Frank's frustrations in hiding his engagement to Jane Fairfax.



 

John Thorpe - "Northanger Abbey" (1817)

I would view John Thorpe as Jane Austen's least successful rogue. I do not if I could even call him a rogue. He seemed so coarse, ill-mannered and not very bright. With his flashy wardrobe and penchant for mild profanity, I have doubts that he could attract any female, including one that was desperate for a husband. And his joke on Catherine Moreland seemed so . . . unnecessary. Here are the actors that portrayed John Thorpe:




1. Jonathan Coy (1986) - He basically did a good job with the character he was given. Although there were moments when his John Thorpe seemed more like an abusive stalker than the loser he truly was.




2. William Beck (2007) - I admit that physically, he looks a little creepy. But the actor did a first-rate job in portraying Thorpe as the crude loser he was portrayed in Austen's novel.



 

Isabella Thorpe - "Northanger Abbey" (1817)

The lovely Isabella Thorpe was a different kettle of fish than her brother. She had ten times the charms and probably the brains. Her problem was that her libido brought her down the moment she clapped eyes on Captain Frederick Tilney. And this is what ended her friendship with heroine Catherine Moreland, considering that she was engaged to the latter's brother. Here are the actresses who portrayed Isabella Thorpe:




1. Cassie Stuart (1986) - She did a pretty good job as Isabella, even if there were moments when she came off as a bit . . . well, theatrical. I only wish that the one of the crew had taken it easy with her makeup.




2. Carey Mulligan (2007) - She gave a first-rate performance as Isabella, conveying all of the character's charm, intelligence and weaknesses. It was a very good performance.



  

William Elliot - "Persuasion" (1818)

William Elliot is a cousin of heroine Anne Elliot and the heir presumptive of her father, Sir Walter. He became etranged from the family when he wed a woman of much lower social rank, for her fortune. Sir Walter and Elizabeth had hoped William would marry the latter. After becoming a widower, he mended his relationship with the Elliots and attempted to court Anne in the hopes of inheriting the Elliot baronetcy and ensuring that Sir Walter never marries Mrs. Penelope Clay, Elizabeth Elliot's companion. He was an interesting character, but his agenda regarding Sir Walter's title and estates struck me as irrelevant. Sir Walter could have easily found another woman to marry and conceive a male heir. "PERSUASION" could have been a better story without a rogue/villain. Here are the actors that portrayed William Elliot:




1. David Savile (1971) - He made a pretty good William Elliot. However, there were times when his character switched from a jovial personality to a seductive one in an uneven manner.





2. Samuel West (1995) - His portrayal of William Elliot is probably the best I have ever seen. He conveyed all aspects of William's character - both the good and bad - with seamless skill. My only problem with his characterization is that the screenwriter made his William financial broke. And instead of finding another rich wife, this William tries to court Anne to keep a close eye on Sir Walter and Mrs. Clay. Ridiculous.




3. Tobias Menzies (2007) - I found his portrayal of William Elliot to be a mixed affair. There were moments that his performance seemed pretty good. Unfortunately, there were more wooden moments from the actor than decent ones.

"HERCULE POIROT'S CHRISTMAS" (1995) Review

 

"HERCULE POIROT'S CHRISTMAS" (1995) Review

I have been a fan of Agatha Christie's 1938 novel, "Hercule Poirot's Christmas" aka "A Holiday for Murder" for years - ever since I was in my early adolescence. When I learned that the producers of the "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" series aired its adaptation of it back in 1995, I looked forward to watching it. 

Written as a "locked room" mystery, "HERCULE POIROT'S CHRISTMAS" focused on Belgian sleuth Hercule Poirot's investigation of the murder of Simeon Lee, a tyrannical patriarch of a wealthy family. The mean-spirited Lee, who had made his fortune in South African diamonds, summons his offspring to his country manor house for a Christmas gathering. He also requests that Poirot attend the reunion, but fails to give a full explanation for the latter's presence. Those gathered for Lee's Christmas reunion are:

*Alfred Lee, his dutiful oldest son

*Lydia Lee, Alfred's wife

*George Lee, Simeon's penny-pinching middle son, who is also a Member of Parliament

*Magdalene Lee, George's wife, a beauty with a mysterious past

*Harry Lee, Simeon's ne'er do well son, who has been living abroad

*Pilar Estavados, Simeon's Anglo-Spanish granddaughter

The sadistic Lee treats his family with cruelty and enjoys pitting them against each other. This is apparent in a scene in which he summons his family to his sitting room and fakes a telephone call to his solicitor, announcing his intentions to make changes to his will. Later that evening, a scream is heard by the manor's inhabitants before Lee's throat is cut in an apparent locked room. Although the old man was wheelchair bound, there is evidence of a great struggle between him and his murder. It is up to Poirot, assisted by Chief Inspector Japp of Scotland Yard and a local investigating officer named Superintendent Sugden to find Simeon Lee's murderer before the latter can strike again.

I would never view "HERCULE POIROT'S CHRISTMAS" as one of the better Christie adaptations I have seen. But I still managed to enjoy it. One, the television movie is rich with a holiday atmosphere, despite the presence of murder. In fact, I can honestly say that Rob Harris' production designs really impressed me. Along with Simon Kossoff's photography, they gave the movie an atmosphere of Olde England that suited the story's setting very well. I also enjoyed Andrea Galer's costume designs for the film. Instead of the early or mid-1930s, her costume designs for the female characters seemed to hint that the movie was set during the late 1930s.

"HERCULE POIROT'S CHRISTMAS" also benefited from a solid cast. David Suchet gave a first rate performance as Hercule Poirot, with his usual mixture of subtle humor and intelligence. He was ably supported by a very wry performance from PhilipJackson as Chief Inspector Japp. The rest of the cast, aside from four, gave solid but unmemorable performances. For me, there were three standouts that really impressed me. Brian Gwaspari was a hoot as Simeon Lee's outspoken prodigal son, Harry. And he had great chemistry with Sasha Behar, who was charming and frank as Simeon's Anglo-Spanish granddaughter, Pilar Estravados. The producers cast veteran character actor Vernon Dobtcheff as the poisonous Simeon Lee. And he portrayed the hell out of that role, giving the character a richness and sharp wit that allowed him to practically own it. The only performance that failed to impress me came from Mark Tandy, who portrayed Superintendent Sudgen. I hate to say this, but Tandy's take on a character as memorable and imposing as Sudgen seemed lightweight. He almost seemed overshadowed by Suchet and Jackson and I suspect that the role would have succeeded better with a more imposing actor.

As I had stated earlier, I have always been a fan of Christie's 1938 film. This adaptation could have been first rate. But it had one main problem - namely Clive Exton's screenplay. He made two major changes to the plot that nearly undermined the story. I did not mind that he had reduced the number of characters by eliminating the David Lee, Hilda Lee and Stephen Farr characters. I DID mind when he substituted the Colonel Johnson character for Chief Inspector Japp as the case's senior investigator. As a member of Scotland Yard, Japp was out of his jurisdiction, which was limited to Greater London. This is a mistake that has appeared in a handful of other Exton adaptations. The screenwriter's bigger mistake proved to be the addition of a prologue set in 1896 South Africa. The prologue included a scene featuring Simeon Lee's murder of his partner and his seduction of a young Afrikaaner woman named Stella. Even worse, Stella reappeared as a mysterious guest at a local hotel in 1936 England. The addition of the South African sequence and the Stella character made it easier for viewers to eliminate a good number of characters as potential suspects . . . and dimmed the mystery of Simeon Lee's murder.

I managed to enjoy "HERCULE POIROT'S CHRISTMAS" very much. It featured excellent characterizations and a rich, holiday atmosphere, thanks to Simon Kossoff's production designs and Andrea Galer's costume designs. Director Edward Bennett did a great job with a superb cast led by a superb David Suchet. But several changes to Christie's plot made by screenwriter Clive Exton prevented this movie from being the first-rate adaptation it could have been.

"HALLOWE'EN PARTY" (2010) Review

 

"HALLOWE'EN PARTY" (2010) Review

Many years have passed since I last read Agatha Christie's 1969 novel, "Hallowe'en Party". Although it is not considered one of Christie's better novels, the story possessed a style that struck me as rich and atmospheric. I never forgot it. So, when I learned about ITV's 2010 adaptation of the novel, I could not wait to see it. 

Directed by Charles Palmer and adapted by actor Mark Gatiss (who appeared in 2008's "APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH"), "HALLOWE'EN PARTY" begins with mystery author Adrianne Oliver visiting a friend named Judith Butler in the small village of Woodleigh Common. Because Mrs. Butler has a young daughter named Melinda, the two women accompany her to a children's Halloween party being held at the home of a widow named Rowena Drake. A young girl named Joyce Reynolds announce that she had once witnessed a murder. Everyone assumes she is lying. A few hours later, Joyce is found drowned in a tub filled with water and bobbing apples. Determined to learn the identity of Joyce's murder, Mrs. Oliver summons another friend, Belgian-born detective to Woodleigh Commons to solve the murder. During his investigation of Joyce's murder, Poirot uncovers a series of murders, mysterious deaths and disappearances that the thirteen year-old girl may have witnessed.

I might as well be perfectly frank. I do not consider "HALLOWE'EN PARTY" to be one of the better written Christie adaptations I have seen. Ironically, the fault does not lay with screenwriter Mark Gatiss. I believe he did the best he could with the material given to him. But I believe that Christie's 1969 novel was not one of her better works. I will be even franker. "HALLOWE'EN PARTY" nearly worked as a mystery. But looking back on it, I realized that it was one of those mysteries that I found easy to solve. Poirot's investigation into past murders, suspicious deaths and disappearances at Woodleigh Common made the story somewhat easy to solve. Even worse, the murderer was nearly revealed some ten minutes before Poirot revealed his solution to the case. Like 2008's "APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" and 2010's"MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS", "HALLOWE'EN PARTY" also touched on the subject of religion. Thankfully, Gatiss managed to keep the subject of religion on a subtle level - including the topic of paganism.

"Hallowe'en Party" was published in 1969 and heavily reflected the late 1960s. I cannot deny that this television adaptation looked very handsome, thanks to Jeff Tessler's production designs, Cinders Forshaw's photography and Sheena Napier's costume designs. All three did an exceptional job of transporting viewers to a small English village in the late 1930s and capturing the mysterious atmosphere of Halloween. I only have two complaints about this. Despite the first-rate 1930s setting, I wish that the movie had been given the novel's original late 1960s setting. I believe this story was more suited for this particular setting. Also, I wish that both Palmer and Gatiss had not included sounds of children chanting "Snap, Snap, Snap", whenever a lone character seemed to be in a threatening situation. These chants brought back annoying memories of a handful of old "POIROT" movies from the 1990s that featured titles from nursery rhymes.

The saving grace of "HALLOWE'EN PARTY" proved to be the cast. David Suchet was in top form as Belgian detectiveHercule Poirot. I found his portrayal subtle, humorous and intelligent. Frankly, I consider his performance to be one of his better efforts in the past three or four years. Many "POIROT" fans have bemoaned the lack of Hugh Fraser as Arthur Hastings during the past decade. As much as I had enjoyed Fraser's portrayal, I did not miss him that much, thanks to Zoë Wanamaker's portrayal of Adrianne Oliver, a mystery author who became one of Poirot's closest friends. I have already seen Wanamaker's previous takes on the Adrianne Oliver character in other "POIROT" episodes. She was marvelous in those episodes and I can say the same about her performance in this one. Also, she and Suchet made a surprisingly effective and humorous screen team.

The supporting cast featured interesting performances from acting veterans. There was Timothy West, whose portrayal of Woodleigh Commons' vicar, struck me as wonderfully subtle and complex. Eric Sykes, whom I remembered from the"DARING YOUNG MEN" movies of the 1960s, was in fine form as the elderly solicitor Mr. Fullerton. Fenella Woolgar made a poignant Elizabeth Whittaker, a local schoolteacher who continued to mourn the death of a potential lover. Sophie Thompson gave an interesting, yet slightly melodramatic performance as the religious mother of the dead Joyce, Mrs. Reynolds. I must say that I was surprised that Julian Rhind-Tutt managed to keep it together and prevent his portrayal of landscape gardener, Michael Garfield, from becoming hammy. Mind you, Rhind-Tutt has been more than capable of giving a subtle performance in other productions. But Michael Garfield is somewhat of a showy character. The movie also benefitted from solid performances from the likes of Amelia Bullmore, Phyllida Law, Mary Higgins, Ian Hallard and Georgia King. However, I believe that Deborah Findlay gave the best performance in the movie, aside from Suchet and Wanamaker. She was subtle, yet superb as the ladylike, yet pushy widow Rowena Drake, whose home served as the setting for the opening murder.

I would not consider "HALLOWE'EN PARTY" to be one of the better Christie stories. As I had stated earlier, I believe its main flaws originated from the author's 1969 novel. However, both director Charles Palmer and screenwriter Mark Gatiss did the best they could. Their efforts were not able to overcome Christie's narrative flaws. But I believe they still managed to provide television audiences with an entertaining and atmospheric story, with the help of a first-rate cast led by David Suchet.