Rosiepowell2000's blog

"GOSFORD PARK" (2001) Review

 

"GOSFORD PARK" (2001) Review

In 1999, actor Bob Balaban had approached director Robert Altman with the idea of developing a film together. Altman suggested a whodunit set at an English country estate. The two approached actor/writer Julian Fellowes if he could take their concept and write a screenplay. Their collective efforts resulted in the 2001 comedy-drama, "GOSFORD PARK". 

In the movie, a group of wealthy Britons, a British actor/entertainer, an American movie producer and their servants gather at Gosford Park, the country estate of a wealthy industrialist named Sir William McCordle, for a shooting party over the weekend. Sir William is not a popular man. His wife and most of his in-laws despise him. And most of his servants (aside from one or two) dislike him. When Sir William is found murdered inside his study during the second night of the weekend, there seemed to be a list of suspects who have a very good reason to kill him:

*Lady Sylvia McCordle - Sir William's bitchy wife, who despises him and had married Sir William for his money

*Commander Anthony Meredith - One of Sir William's brothers-in-law, who is desperate for the industrialist's financial backing in a venture regarding shoes for Sudanese soldiers

*Raymond, Lord Stockbridge - Sir William's snobbish brother-in-law, whose wife might be having an affair with him

*Lady Lavinia Meredith - Sir William's younger sister-in-law and devoted wife to Commander Meredith

*Mrs. Croft - Gosford Park's head cook and former employee at one of Sir William's factories, who despised him

*Mrs. Wilson - Gosford Park's housekeeper, Mrs. Croft younger sister and another former employee of one of Sir William's factories

*Lord Rupert Standish - a penniless aristocrat who wants to overcome Sir William's opposition and marry his only child, Isobel McCordle

*Constance, Countess of Trentham - Sir William's aunt-in-law, who is dependent upon a regular allowance from him

The weekend party include other guests and servants, such as:

*Mary Maceachran - Lady Trentham's lady maid

*Elsie - Head housemaid whom Mary befriended, and who was definitely having an affair with Sir William

*Ivor Novello - Famous actor/singer and Sir William's cousin

*Morris Weissman - Producer from Fox Studios

*Henry Denton - Weissman's valet, who is actually a Hollywood minor actor studying for an upcoming role

*Robert Parks - Lord Stockbridge's new valet

*Jennings - Major domo of Gosford Park, who has a secret to hide

*Honorable Freddie Nesbitt - A local impoverished aristocrat who had earlier seduced Isobel. At the shooting party, he tries to blackmail her into convincing Sir William to give him a job

*Mabel Nesbitt - The daughter of a self-made glove manufacturer whom Freddie married for her money, before spending the latter. 

*Louisa, Lady Stockbridge - Sir William's other sister-in-law, with whom he might have had an affair

*Probert - Sir William's personal valet and one of the few who actually grieved him.

Needless to say, the list of characters is a long one. Following Sir William's murder, the local police in the form of one Inspector Thompson and Constable Dexter arrive to solve the murder. Being incompetent and a complete snob, Inspector Thompson seemed to regard the higher class guests as worthy suspects for the murder of Sir William. Constable Dexter, on the other hand, seemed more interested in Jennings' World War I past and the clues at hand. In fact, Dexter managed to ascertain that Sir William had been poisoned by one person, before another drove an ax into his back. But it was lady's maid Mary Maceachran who managed to figure out the culprits in the end.

I cannot deny that after ten years or so, "GOSFORD PARK" remains a big favorite of mine. When the movie first reached the movie screens in December 2001, many admitted to enjoying the film, but predicted that it would age with time. There are perhaps some critics who believe this has actually happened. But I do not agree. Considering the increasingly bleak social landscape of today, I believe that the theme behind "GOSFORD PARK" has remained relevant as ever. Despite my love for the film, would I consider it perfect? Honestly? No. Other critics may be able to find more than two flaws in the film. On the other hand, I was able to find two that bothered me.

The pacing for most of "GOSFORD PARK" seemed to be on spot . . . at least for me. It possessed a great set-up for introducing the characters, the setting's atmosphere and the revelation of the suspects' motives for wanting Sir William dead. However, the murder did not occur until two-thirds into the movie. Once Inspector Thompson appeared on the scene, the movie's pacing began to drag. And it did not pick up again until the movie's last twenty minutes. For me, the pacing during the last third of the film struck me as merely a minor flaw. There was another that proved to be a bigger one for me - namely the Henry Denton character. 

I have nothing against Ryan Phillipe's performance as Denton. Trust me, I thought he did a superb job. But Julian Fellowes' portrayal of the character left me shaking my head in confusion. According to the script, Denton was an American actor for Fox Studios who accompanied Morris Weissman as his Scottish valet in order to study British servants for a role in a "CHARLIE CHAN" movie. This little deception strikes me as something actors did for a role during the past thirty or forty years . . . certainly not in 1932. The deception ended when Henry admitted his true identity to the police. But the one thing that really disturbed me about the character was his attempted rape of Mary Maceachran during the first night of the weekend. Why did Fellowes include that scenario in the first place? Henry had already made a date for some nocturnal activity with Lady Sylvia McCordle, several minutes earlier. If he had already scheduled a night for sex with the mistress of the house, why have him assault Mary a few mintues later? I suspect that Fellowes wanted to establish a character that most of the characters - aristocratic and lower-class - would dislike. Both aristocrats and servants alike reacted with glee when one of the servants, portrayed by Richard Grant, dumped a cup of hot tea (or coffee) on Henry's lap. With Henry being an American, I can only assume he made an easier target for the derision of everyone. I can only wonder why Altman and Balaban did not question this heavy-handed characterization of Henry. Regardless of Fellowes' reason for vilifying Henry, I found the rape attempt as an example of clumsy and unnecessary writing on his part.

Thankfully, most of "GOSFORD PARK" proved to be quite a cherished gem. Not even the flaws I had pointed out in the above paragraphs can overcome my appreciation of this movie. Altman, Balaban and Fellowes took a classic literary device - "country house mystery" - and used it to explore the British class system of the early 1930s. "GOSFORD PARK" revealed the changes that affected Britain's social landscape by 1932. Aside from Lord Stockbridge, most of the aristocratic characters seemed to be struggling to make ends meet financially in order to maintain a lifestyle they had been born into. Those from a middle-class or working-class background like Sir William McCordle, his "cousin" Ivor Novello, Morris Weissman and Mabel Nesbitt have become successful, wealthy or in the case of Mabel, the offspring of a self-made man. Their success and wealth has allowed them to socialize amongt the aristocracy and upper-class. But their origins continue to attract scorn from the likes of Lady Sylvia, her sister Lady Lavinia and their aunt, the Countess of Trentham. The servants featured in "GOSFORD PARK" seemed to be divided into three categories - those who are blindly loyal to their employers; those like Elsie, Robert Parks and Mrs. Croft, who despise their employers; and those like Mary, Jennings and Mrs. Wilson who do not love or hate their employers, but simply take pride in their professionalism. 

What I found interesting about "GOSFORD PARK" is that both servants and guests possessed both positive and negative traits. The exceptions to the rule proved to be Mary, who struck me as a bit too ideal for my tastes; and of course, Henry Denton, whose portrayal I had already complained about. Most people would add that Sir William had also been portrayed as a one-dimensional villain. But the humiliations he endured under the snobbish Lady Sylvia and Elsie's warm recollections of him saved the character from such a fate.

Another aspect about "GOSFORD PARK" that I truly enjoyed was its overall production design. Stephen Altman did a superb job of re-creating the atmosphere of a country manor home in the early 1930s. He was ably supported by Anna Pinnock's set decorations, along with John Frankis and Sarah Hauldren's art direction. For me, it was Jenny Bevan's costumes and the women's hairstyles that made me realize that the production team really knew what they were doing. I have rarely come across a movie or television production set in the 1930s that was completely accurate - especially in regard to costumes and hairstyles.

There were plenty of first-rate performances in "GOSFORD PARK". But there were a handful that stood out for me. Both Helen Mirren and Maggie Smith earned Academy Award nominations for their portrayals of Mrs. Wilson and the Countess of Trentham, respectively. Mirren was superb as the no-nonsense housekeeper, whose stoic personality hid a passionate nature that would eventually be revealed upon a discovery she made. In my review of Season One of "DOWNTON ABBEY", I had complained that Maggie Smith's portrayal of the Dowager Countess of Grantham bore a strong resemblance to her Lady Trentham in "GOSFORD PARK". I stand by that observation. But there is something about Smith's portrayal of Lady Trentham that struck me as a lot more subtle and a little more poisonous in her class bigotry. Clive Owen gave a charismatic performance as the mysterious valet, Robert Parks, whose past attracts the attention of both Mary Maceachran and Mrs. Wilson. 

Michael Gambon gave one of his more interesting performances as the mystery's main victim, Sir William McCordle. Superficially, he was as crude and cold-blooded as many regarded the character. Yet, Gambon injected a certain charm into his performance that made it easier for me to see why Sir William had a way with the ladies. Bob Balaban provided some fine comic moments as the droll Hollywood producer that harbored a slight contempt toward his aristocratic hosts behind a polite veneer. I have already pointed out Ryan Phillipe's portrayal of Henry Denton. I must admit that he did a first-rate job in conveying the portrait of a smooth hustler. Many have commented on Maggie Smith's wit in the movie. However, I thought that Emily Watson's portrayal of head housemaid Elsie was equally sharp and sardonic. Alan Bates gave one of his last best performances as the stuffy, yet likable major domo of the McCordle household, who harbored a secret about his past as a conscientious objector during World War I. At the same time, Watson was wonderfully poignant as one of the few people who not only mourned Sir William, but appreciated his friendship and words of wisdom to her. I found it surprising that the movie's moral center proved to the be the sweet and eventually wise Mary Maceachran, Lady Trentham's new personal maid. Kelly MacDonald was in her mid-20s when she did this movie and her character was not particularly flashy in compare to many of the other roles. Yet, not only did she held her own against the likes of Maggie Smith and Emily Watson, she did a great job in becoming the movie's emotional anchor . . . even if her character was a bit too ideal for my tastes.

"GOSFORD PARK" earned a good deal of accolades after its release. It was nominated for seven Academy Awards and won a Best Original Screenplay for Julian Fellowes. It also earned five Golden Globe awards and Robert Altman won for Best Director. Would I have voted "GOSFORD PARK" as the Best Picture of 2001? Not really. I was more impressed by Peter Jackson's adaptation of the first "LORD OF THE RINGS" movie. But thanks to a superb cast, Julian Fellowes' screenplay and Robert Altman's direction, it not proved to be one of the cinematic gems of 2001, but also of the entire decade.

"WESTWARD HO!": Part Two - "THE WAY WEST" (1967)

Below is Part Two to my article about Hollywood's depiction about the westward migration via wagon trains in 19th century United States. It focuses upon the 1967 movie, "THE WAY WEST": 

"WESTWARD HO!": Part Two - "THE WAY WEST" (1967)

I. Introduction

Based upon A.B. Guthrie Jr.'s 1949 novel, "THE WAY WEST" told the story of a large wagon train's journey to Oregon in 1843. The wagon train is led by a widowed former U.S. Senator named William Tadlock (Kirk Douglas). A former mountain man named Dick Summers (Robert Mitchum) is hired as the wagon party's guide and among the last to join the train is farmer Lije Evans (Richard Widmark), his wife Rebecca (Lola Albright)and their 16 year-old son Brownie (Michael McGreevey); who were living near Independence when the wagon train was being formed.

During the journey to Oregon, the movie introduced audiences with the other members of the wagon train. They included a family from Georgia named the McBees (Harry Carey Jr., Connie Sawyer and Sally Field), and the recently married Johnnie and Amanda Mack (Mike Witney and Katherine Justice). Personal friendships and animosities flourished during the 2,000 miles journey. Summers managed to befriend both Lije and Brownie Evans. The latter fell in love with the McBees' extroverted daughter Mercy, who developed a crush on Johnnie Mack. The latter had difficulty consummating his marriage with a sexually unresponsive wife. Frustrated, Mack turned to Mercy for a brief tryst. Senator Tadlock proved to be an intimidating, yet manipulative leader. Only two people dared to question his decisions - Summers and Lije. Especially the latter. Although willing to question Tadlock's leadership, Lije was reluctant to replace him as the wagon party's new leader.

"THE WAY WEST" received a good deal of negative criticisms. It has also been compared to "HOW THE WEST WAS WON" to its detriment. I plan to write a review of "THE WAY WEST" in the future. But right now, I am more interested in how the movie fared in regard to historical accuracy.


II. History vs. Hollywood

The Tadlock wagon party headed for Oregon Territory in 1843, the year known as "The Great Migration of 1843" or the "Wagon Train of 1843", in which an estimated 700 to 1,000 emigrants left for Oregon. The number of emigrants in Tadlock's party and the year in which the movie is set, seemed historically accurate. "THE WAY WEST" also featured a few well-known landmarks along the Oregon Trail. Such landmarks included Chimney Rock, Scott's Bluff, Independence Rock and Fort Hall. Fort Laramie did not play a role in the movie's plot.

So far, "THE WAY WEST" seemed to be adhering to historical accuracy. Unfortunately, this did not last. One, the wagons featured in the movie came in all shapes and sizes. They ranged from farm wagons to large Conestoga wagons. I cannot even describe the wagon used by the McFee family. It was not as heavy as a Conestoga, but it was long enough to convey Mr. McFee's peach tree saplings across the continent. The draft animals used by the emigrants turned out to be a mêlée of oxen, mules and horses. The movie did point out the necessity of abandoning unnecessary possessions to lighten the wagons' loads. Only, it was pointed out when the wagon party attempted to ascend a very steep slope what looked like the in Idaho.

"THE WAY WEST" did not feature a large-scale attack by a horde of Native Americans. But the movie came damn near close to including one. The wagon party first encountered a group of Cheyenne warriors not far from Independence Rock. When one of the emigrants, Johnnie Mack, mistook a chief's young son hidden underneath a wolf's skin as a real wolf and shot him, the wagon train made tracks in order to avoid retribution. The Cheyenne caught up with the wagon party and demanded the head of the boy's killer. The other emigrants declared they were willing to fight it out with the Cheyenne, until they discovered they would be facing a large horde of warriors. In the end, Mr. Mack confessed to the crime and allowed himself to be hanged, in order to spare Brownie Evans from being handed over to the Cheyenne by Tadlock. 

Dramatically, I found this sequence to be effective. I admired how director Andrew V. McLaglen developed the tension between the emigrants, Senator Tadlock and the Cheyenne demanding justice. Historically, I found it a mess. The number of Cheyenne warriors that had gathered for the sake of one boy struck me as very improbable. The only times I could recall that many Native Americans gathering at one spot was the council for the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie and theBattle of Little Bighorn. And considering that the Cheyenne nation were spread out from the Black Hills in present-day South Dakota to southern Colorado, I found this encounter between the Tadlock wagon party and the Cheyenne historically improbable.

"THE WAY WEST" fared somewhat better than "HOW THE WEST WAS WON" in regard to historical accuracy. But I found it lacking in some aspects of the plot. Like the 1962 movie, "THE WAY WEST" proved to be more entertaining than historically accurate.

"TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY" (2011) Review

 

"TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY" (2011) Review

Between the late 1970s and early 1980s, author John le Carré wrote a series of popular novels called The Karla Trilogythat featured MI-6 officer George Smiley as the leading character. At least two versions of "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy"had been made The most recent is the 2011 movie in which Gary Oldman starred as Smiley. 

Set in 1973, "TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY" has George Smiley, who was recently forced to retire, recalled to hunt down a Soviet mole named "Gerald" in MI-6 (a.k.a. the "Circus"), the highest echelon of the Secret Intelligence Service. The movie began with "Control" - the head of MI-6 - sending agent Jim Prideaux to Hungary to meet a Hungarian general who wishes to sell information. The operation is blown and the fleeing Prideaux is shot in the back by Hungarian intelligence. After the international incident that followed, Control and his right-hand man, Smiley were forced into retirement. Control, already ill, died soon afterwards. When field agent Rikki Tarr learned through his affair with the wife of a Moscow Centre intelligence officer in Turkey that the Soviets have a mole within the higher echelon of MI-6, Civil Service officer Oliver Lacon recalled Smiley from retirement to find the mole known as "Gerald". Smiley discovered that Control suspected five senior intelligence officers:

*Smiley 
*Percy Alleline (new MI-6 chief)
*Bill Haydon (one of Alleline's deputies)
*Roy Bland (another Alleline deputy and the only one from a working-class 
background)
*Toby Esterhase (Alleline's Hungarian-born deputy, recruited by Smiley)

I have never seen the 1979 television version of le Carré's 1974 novel, which starred Alec Guinness. In fact, I have never been inclined to watch it. Until now. My interest in seeing the television adaptation has a lot to do with my appreciation of this new film version. I enjoyed it very much. I did not love it. After all, it did not make my Ten Favorite Movies of 2011 list. It nearly did, but . . . not quite.

Why did "TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY" fail to make my favorite 2011 movies list? Overall, Tomas Alfredson did an excellent job in translating le Carré's story to the screen. However . . . the pacing was slow. In fact, it crawled at the speed of a snail. It was so slow that in the end, I fell asleep some fifteen to twenty minutes before the movie ending, missing the very moment when Smiley exposed "Gerald" at the safe. However, I did wake up in time to learn the identity of "Gerald" and the tragic consequences of that revelation. I have one more problem with the film. Benedict Cumberbatch portrayed Peter Guillam, a former division head recruited to assist Smiley in the latter's mole hunt. There was a brief scene featuring "DOWNTON ABBEY" regular, Laura Carmichael, in which Guillam revealed his homosexuality. Cumberbatch did an excellent job in conveying this revelation with very little dialogue and a great deal of facial expressions. And yet . . . this revelation seemed to have very little or no bearing, whatsoever, in the movie's main plot. Even Smiley's marital problems ended up being relevant to the main narrative. End in the end, I found the revelation of Guillam's sexuality a wasted opportunity.

But there is a great deal to admire about "TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY". One, it is a fascinating tale about one of the time-honored plot lines used in more espionage - namely the mole hunt. I suppose one could credit le Carré for creating such a first-rate story. But I have seen too many mediocre or bad adaptations of excellent novels to solely credit le Carré for this movie. It would not have worked without great direction from Alfredson; or Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan's superb script. I found Maria Djurkovic's production designs for the film rather interesting. She injected an austere and slightly cold aura into her designs for 1973 London that suited the movie perfectly. And she was ably assisted by cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema, and art designers Tom Brown and Zsuzsa Kismarty-Lechner.

The heart and soul of "TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY" was its cast led by Gary Oldman, as George Smiley. The cast almost seemed to be a who's who of British actors living in the United Kingdom. Toby Jones, Colin Firth, Ciarán Hinds and David Dencik portrayed the four men suspects being investigated by Smiley. All four did an excellent and kept the audience on their toes on who might be "Gerald". However, I do have one minor complaint. Hinds' character, Roy Bland, seemed to have received less screen time than the other three. Very little screen time, as a matter of fact. Mark Strong gave one of the movie's better performances as the MI-6 agent, Jim Prideaux, who was betrayed by "Gerald" and eventually forced to leave "the Circus" following his return to Britain. 

Both Simon McBurney and Kathy Burke gave solid performances as Civil Service officer Oliver Lecon and former MI-6 analyst Connie Sachs. However, Roger Lloyd-Pack seemed to be a bit wasted as another of Smiley's assistants, Mendel. I have already commented on Benedict Cumberbatch's performance as Peter Guillam. However, I must admit that I found his 1970s hairstyle to look a bit artificial. I can also say the same about the blond "locks" Tom Hardy used for his role as MI-6 agent Rikki Tarr. Fortunately, there was a good deal to admire about the actor's emotional, yet controlled performance as Tarr. I really enjoyed John Hurt's portrayal of Smiley's former superior, the gregarious Control. I thought it was one of his more colorful roles in recent years.

However, the man of the hour is Gary Oldman and his portrayal of MI-6 officer, George Smiley. Many found the selection of Oldman to portray Smiley a rather curious one. The actor has built a reputation for portraying characters a lot more extroverted than the mild-mannered Smiley. His minimalist performance in "TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY"took a great deal of people by surprise. So much so that Oldman ended up earning an Academy Award nomination for his performance. And he deserved it, as far as I am concerned. I consider George Smiley to be one of Oldman's best screen performances during his 30 odd years in movies. In fact, I suspect that the actor has made George Smiley his own, just as much as Alec Guinness did over thirty years ago.

As I had stated earlier, "TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY" is not perfect. Its pacing is as slow as molasses. I thought actor Ciarán Hinds and the plot revelation regarding Peter Gulliam's homosexuality was vastly underused. But thanks to Tomas Alfredson's direction, Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan's Oscar nominated screenplay, and an excellent cast led by Gary Oldman in a superb Oscar nominated performance; the movie turned out to be a surprising treat and has ignited my interst in the world of George Smiley.

"SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS" (2011) Review

 

"SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS" (2011) Review

Following the success of his 2009 movie, "SHERLOCK HOLMES", Guy Ritchie returned to helm a sequel about 19th century detective Sherlock Holmes' battle with his famous arch nemesis, Professor James Moriarty. Both Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law reprise their roles of Holmes and Dr. John Watson. 

Loosely adapted from Arthur Conan Doyle's 1893 short story called, "The Final Problem", "SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS" picks up sometime after the end of the 2009 movie. Thanks to Irene Adler's disclosure of the master criminal, Sherlock Holmes has been investigating Moriarty's activities. The latter brings him to the attention of Irene, who is still working as an agent for the professor. He follows Irene to an auction, where she delivers a package to a Dr. Hoffmanstahl as payment for a letter he was to deliver to Moriarty. The package holds not only money, but a bomb that would have killed Hoffmanstahl, if Holmes had not intervened. Unfortunately, Hoffmanstahl is assassinated upon leaving the auction house. And when Irene meets with Professor Moriarty to explain the events, he poisons her, deeming her compromised by her love for Holmes. 

Holmes reveals to his friend and colleague, Dr. Watson, that Moriarty might be connected to a series of murders, terrorist attacks and business acquisitions. During Watson's bachelor party, Holmes meets with the Gypsy fortune-teller Simza, the intended recipient of the letter he had taken from Adler. It was sent by Simza's brother Rene, who has been working for Moriarty. Holmes defeats an assassin who had been sent to kill her. Later, Holmes meets with Moriarty after Watson's wedding to Mary Morstan. Moriarty informs Holmes that he murdered Adler and will kill Watson and Mary if Holmes' interference continues. After Holmes help Watson and Mary fight off attack by Moriarty's men aboard a train during their honeymoon, the two men travel to Paris to find Simza. Their journey to Paris, Germany and Switzerland lead them to uncover a plot by Moriarty to instigate a world war and profit from it. This plot will be set off by an assassination at a peace conference in Switzerland.

Although the movie was a hit at the box office, it received mixed reviews from the critics. A good number of them and moviegoers claimed that although it was entertaining, it was not as good as the first movie. In my review of"SHERLOCK HOLMES", I made it clear that I enjoyed it very much. And I still do. But after watching "SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS", I realized that the villain's plot featured in the first movie struck me as a little . . . illogical. Using the illusion of sorcery to assume control of the British Empire? James Moriarty's plot to assume control of the arms market in Europe and instigate a world war for profit strikes me as a lot more logical. And James Moriarty made a scarier villain than Lord Blackwood. 

Another advantage that this sequel has over the first film, was the change of location in the second half - from Paris to Germany and later, Switzerland. I loved it. The color, squalor and grandeur that production designer Sarah Greenwood, cinematographer Philippe Rousselot and the visual effects team created for Victorian London in "SHERLOCK HOLMES", were not only re-created for the same setting in this new movie, but for also late 19th century Paris, Germany and Switzerland. My only quibble about the movie's German setting is that Kieran and Michele Mulroney's script failed to inform moviegoers the name of the German town where Holmes, Watson and Simza found themselves. 

One outstanding sequence featured a gunfight between Holmes, Watson and Mary and Moriarty's men, disguised as British Army troops. Not only did I find it very exciting, I especially enjoyed that last shot of a half-destroyed train racing forward, with Holmes and Watson staring ahead. But the real outstanding sequence featured the heroes' flight from Moriarty's German arsenal through heavy woods. Yes, Rousselot used slow motion photography during this sequence. A good number of people did complain about it. But you know what? Not only did it fail to bother me, I actually enjoyed it. And watching this sequence made me realize that I would love to see a war movie directed by Ritchie. 

As in the first movie, the cast was outstanding. Rachel McAdams returned to give a beguiling, yet brief performance as the doomed Irene Adler. As much as I love this movie, I am PISSED OFF that Ritchie had her character killed. Paul Anderson was very effective as Moriarty's henchman, villainous marksman Colonel Sebastian Moran. By the way, this same character was used by late author George MacDonald Fraser in two of his books, the 1971 novel "Flash For Freedom!" and the 1999 novella "Flashman and the Tiger". Geraldine James made an amusingly brief appearance as Holmes' beleaguered landlady, Mrs. Hudson. Stephen Fry gave a hilarious performance as Holmes' equally brilliant and arrogant older brother, Mycroft. His scenes with Kelly Reilly especially had me in stitches. I was happy to see that Reilly had more to do in this movie, first as one of Moriarty's intended victims, and later as an assistant to Mycroft, as they help Holmes and Watson stop the master criminal. I am a little mystified that Eddie Marsan maanged to receive such a high billing as Scotland Yard's Inspector Lestrade in the end credits by only speaking one line.

Noomie Rapace was passionate in her portrayal of the Gypsy Simza, who is determined to prevent her brother from makingt the mistake of getting caught up in Moriarty's plot. Jared Harris made a subtle and scary villain in his portrayal of Professor James Moriarty. At first, he did not seem that threatening - almost mild mannered. I supposed this was due to Ritchie and the Mulroneys' decision to give the character a position in society as a reputable scholar within Europe's diplomatic community. Bit by bit, Harris peeled back Moriarty's greed and penchant for sadism. 

I am trying to find the words about Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law's portrayals of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson. I really am. But what can I say? I know . . . they were perfect. They really were. I am not claiming that they were the best to ever portray the two characters. Frankly, I cannot name any one screen team as the best to portray Holmes and Watson. Some might claim Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Others might claim Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke, or the recent television pairing of Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. I refuse to claim that Downey Jr. and Law were better than the other three teams. But I do not believe any of them were better than Downey Jr. and Law. What was their best scene together? Hmmm . . . I find I cannot name one particular scene. Every time they were together, they were magic.

Do I have any complaints about the movie? Well, I did not care for Irene Adler's death, considering the character was a favorite of mine. I found the fight scene between Holmes and Irene's bodyguards a bit confusing and contrived. I wish that Ritchie and the Mulrooney had clarified the name of the German town where Moriarty's arsenal was located. And I finally wish that after the mental strategies of their upcoming fight on one of the balconies at Reichenbach Castle, Holmes and Moriarty's actual fight had lasted a lot longer before the detective pulled his surprise move.

I believe I have said all I could about "SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS". Even though I had a few complaints, I ended up enjoying the movie anyway. Hell, I loved it. The movie became my favorite 2011 movie. Although I had slight doubts, once again, Guy Ritchie, Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law managed to create magic for another Sherlock Holmes adventure.

"WESTWARD HO!": Part One - "HOW THE WEST WAS WON" (1962)

Below is Part One to my article about Hollywood's depiction about the westward migration via wagon trains in 19th century United States. It focuses upon the 1962 movie, "HOW THE WEST WAS WON": 


"WESTWARD HO!": Part One - "HOW THE WEST WAS WON" (1962)

I. Introduction

The sprawling 1962 movie, "HOW THE WEST WAS WON" focused upon the fifty (50) years history of the Prescott-Rawlins family between 1839 and 1889. The movie was divided into five sections - "The Rivers", "The Plains", "The Civil War", "The Railroad" and "The Outlaws". Westbound migration was featured in the movie's first two segments - "The River" and "The Plains". 

"HOW THE WEST WAS WON" opens in 1839 (I think) with the Prescotts, a family from upstate New York, westbound to settle on new land in Illinois. After a trip along the Erie Canal, the Prescotts and their traveling companions, the Harveys from Scotland, build flatboats for the westbound journey on the Ohio River. During their journey, they meet a mountain man named Linus Rawlins (James Stewart), who is eastbound to sell his furs in Pittsburgh. The Prescotts' oldest daughter, Eve (Carroll Baker), and Linus fall in love. After a disastrous encounter with river rapids that led to the deaths of Mr. and Mrs. Prescott; Eve decides to settle at the very location of their deaths in Southern Ohio and accept Linus' marriage proposal. Younger sister Lilith Prescott (Debbie Reynolds) decides to move on.

"The Plains" picks up over a decade later, with Lilith as a dance hall performer in St. Louis. She learns from an attorneythat she has inherited a California gold claim from a now deceased customer. Lilith travels to Independence, where she joins a California-bound wagon train by becoming the traveling companion of a middle-aged woman named Aggie Clegg (Thelma Ritter), willing to use Lilith's looks to attract eligible men for marriage. Lilith also attracts the attention of two men, wagonmaster Roger Morgan (Robert Preston) and a roguish gambler named Cleve Van Valen (Gregory Peck).


II. History vs. Hollywood

To this day, I never understood why screenwriter James R. Webb allowed the Prescotts and the Harveys to travel across the Erie Canal. It is obvious that he had every intention of having them settle in Southern Ohio, along the River. So why use that route? According to the 1840 map below, the Erie Canal was a waterway that stretched from Albany to Buffalo in upstate New York.



This meant that the Prescotts and Harveys's first leg of their journey ended at Buffalo, along the shores of Lake Erie. Are we really supposed to believe that the two families then journeyed from Buffalo to the banks of the Ohio River, in order to reach Illinois, when they could have easily traveled near the U.S.-Canada border to reach their destination? And Webb failed to reveal how they reached the Ohio River without a wagon. He could have allowed Eve Prescott and the other surviving members of the family to settle in Illinois or Ohio near one of the Great Lakes . . . or avoid the Erie Canal altogether and end up in Southern Ohio. Unfortunately, the screenwriter settled for a convoluted route. Even worse, he had mountain man Linus Rawlins traveling toward Pittsburgh to sell furs. Really? In 1839? Linus could have easily sold his furs further west in St. Louis or more importantly, Independence in western Missouri, without having to cross the Mississippi River.

When Lilith Prescott traveled to California after inheriting her California gold claim over a decade later, she chose the correct route - the Oregon/California Trails. However, Webb, director Henry Hathaway, and the producers decide to include nearly every cliché regarding western migration.

One, gambler Cleve Van Valen tried to join Roger Morgan's wagon train in Independence, in order to make acquaintance with Lilith. He was told to get lost. Cleve managed to catch up with the wagon train some 100 miles west of Independence. Yet, the terrain looked suspiciously arid for eastern Kansas. The wagon trains used in this production were very large. In fact, they struck me as looking larger than a typical Conestoga wagon. One scene in the movie featured Cleve and a group of male emigrants playing poker inside one wagon . . . while it was traveling. This was Hollywood history at its worse. And guess what? Those wagons were pulled by horses, not oxen or mules.

"HOW THE WEST WAS WON" never featured any well known landmarks along the Oregon/California Trails. I suspect this was due to the movie's constraining time for each segment. However, there was time to feature a large scale attack on the wagon train by a horde of Cheyenne warriors. And this attack was made against a large and well-armed wagon train. In reality, there would have never been such an attack in the first place. And if such a thing had happened, the Cheyenne would have been seriously wiped out.

I cannot deny that "HOW THE WEST WAS WON" was an entertaining film. But in the end, it turned out to be too much "Hollywood" and not enough "History".

"HOW THE WEST WAS WON" (1962) Review

 

"HOW THE WEST WAS WON" (1962) Review

This 1962 movie was the last of the old-fashioned "epic" films that was released by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM). Filmed using the Cinerama widescreen process, it featured an all-star cast directed by at least three directors. 

After making the decision to use the Cinerama wide-screen process, MGM decided to produce a cinematic adaptation ofLIFE magazine's 1959 series of articles about the history of the American West. Screenwriters James R. Webb and John Gay (uncredited) achieved this by focusing the film on two to three generations of family that migrated westward from western New York, to Southern Ohio, to California and finally to the deserts of Arizona. The story stretched out in a period of fifty (50) years from the late 1830s to the late 1880s. According to Wikipedia, the movie was set between 1839 and 1889. Yet, Webb and Gay's script never indicated this. The movie consisted of five segments that were directed by three directors, Henry Hathaway, John Ford and George Marshall.

"The Rivers", which was directed by Henry Hathaway, focused on the Prescott family's journey from western New York to Southern Ohio, in an attempt to reach the Illinois country via the Erie Canal and the Ohio River. During their journey, they meet a mountain man named Linus Rawlins, who falls in love with eldest daughter, Eve; encounter murderous river pirates; and are caught in some dangerous rapids during their trip down the Ohio River. The last part of their journey ends in Southern Ohio, when the patriarch and matriarch of the Prescotts are drowned and Eve decides to remain there. She eventually marries Linus and her younger sister, Lilith decides to head to St. Louis.

In "The Plains", Lilith Prescott is a dance hall entertainer in St. Louis, when she receives news of an inheritance - a California gold mine - from a former patron. In order to join a California-bound wagon train, Lilith becomes the traveling companion of a middle-aged woman named Agatha Clegg. She also becomes the romantic object of two men - the hard-nosed wagonmaster Roger Morgan (who has a ranch in California) and a professional gambler named Cleve Van Valen. Lilith eventually forms an attachment to Cleve. But when her inheritance turns out to be a bust upon their arrival in California, Cleve abandons her. He eventually reconciles with her on a Sacramento River steamboat and the two marry. Hathaway also directed.

John Ford directed "The Civil War", a short segment about the experiences of Zeb Rawlins' (Eve and Linus' elder son) at the Battle of Shiloh during the Civil War. Although Zeb survives, his father was killed during the battle, and his mother died before his return to the family's Ohio farm. Zeb decides to remain in the Army after the war.

"The Railroad" was about Zeb's experiences as an Army officer during the construction of the railroad during the late 1860s. He tries and fails to keep the peace between the construction crew led by a man named Mike King and the local Arapaho tribe. The Arapho incites a buffalo stampede through the railroad camp after King breaks another promise. And Zeb resigns from the Army. George Marshall directed.

Hathaway directed the final segment, "The Outlaws", which featured Zeb's last days as a law officer, as he tries to prevent a group of outlaws led by a man named Charlie Gant from stealing a shipment of gold. After he is successful, Zeb and his family join his widowed aunt Lilith on a trip to her new Arizona ranch.

"HOW THE WEST WAS WON" was nominated for eight Academy Awards, including Best Picture. It won three won - Best Screenplay, Best Film Editing and Best Sound. It is also considered a favorite of director Ron Howard. I might as well be honest. I have always liked "HOW THE WEST WAS WON". If I had not, I would have never purchased the DVD set. But I cannot see how it was ever nominated for Best Picture, let alone won the Best Screenplay Oscar. It was NOT that great. To me, "HOW THE WEST WAS WON" was a mediocre epic that featured a small handful of excellent performances, great photography and a superb score.

The fifty year period that spanned "HOW THE WEST WAS WON" struck me as more suitable for a television miniseries, instead of a movie - even if it had a running time of 162 minutes. There was too much going on in this film and its time span of fifty years was simply too long. The 2005 miniseries, "INTO THE WEST" had a similar premise, but it had the good luck to be aired in a six-part miniseries that ran for 552 minutes. And because of the lack of balance between the story's premise/time span and its running time, the story about the Prescott-Rawlins family seemed half-empty . . . and rushed.

The best of the five segments are the first two directed by Henry Hathaway - "The River" and "The Plains", which featured the Prescotts treks from New York, to Ohio. Although not perfect, thanks to some plot inconsistency and historical inaccuracy. What makes these two segments superior to the other three is that are longer and if I must be frank, more substantial. I could not decide between the two segments on which was my favorite. I enjoyed viewing the family's journey down the Ohio River and the exciting battle with the river pirates. On the other hand, both Debbie Reynolds and Gregory Peck's performances made "The Plains" very enjoyable for me.

But the worst of the three segments is the third one directed by John Ford - namely "The Civil War". I hate to say this, but John Wayne did not make an effective William T. Sherman. The recently deceased Henry Morgan did a slightly better job as Ulysses S. Grant - frankly, by saying as little as possible. As for the segment, the screenwriters and Ford did not even bother to feature any plausible battle scenes of Shiloh. Instead, the audience was subjected to a quick montage of Civil War scenes from other MGM movies - probably 1957's "RAINTREE COUNTRY". The only good thing about this segment was the beginning scene, when Zeb said good-bye to his mother and younger brother . . . and the last scene, when he said good-bye and handed over his share of the family farm to his brother. 

I enjoyed the work of the cinematography team led by the legendary William H. Daniels very much. I noticed that a great deal of the movie was shot on location in many of the national parks in the United States. However, the Cinerama process took away some of the grandeur with the curved lens, which made it impossible for Daniels and the others to film any effective close ups. And has anyone ever notice that whenever two of the actors seemed to facing each other, their lines of sight seemed to be slightly off? It must have been hell for the actors to face off each other in a scene, while being unnaturally positioned for the camera. 

There were certain aspects of "HOW THE WEST WAS WON" that made it enjoyable for me. Debbie Reynolds, Carroll Baker, George Peppard, Gregory Peck, Thelma Ritter, Henry Fonda, Lee J.Cobb and Eli Wallach gave the best performances, as far as I am concerned. Spencer Tracy did a top-notch job as the film's narrator. But I especially have to commend Reynolds, Baker and Peppard for damn near carrying this film. Without them, this movie would have folded like a sheet of paper. There were some performances that did not ring true to me. According to one scene that featured Linus Rawlings' grave, Eve's husband and Zeb's father was born in 1810. I hate to say this, but James Stewart was too old - at the age of 53 or 54 - to be portraying a 29 year-old man. He gave an entertaining performance, but he was too damn old. Karl Malden, who portrayed Eve and Lilith's father, struck me as a bit too hammy for my tastes. So were Robert Preston, who portrayed the gauche wagonmaster Richard Widmark, who portrayed the railroad boss Mike King. Everyone else was . . . okay.

What was the best thing about "HOW THE WEST WAS WON"? The music. Period. It . . . was . . . superb. Every time I hear the first notes of Alfred Newman's score at the beginning of the movie, I feel goosebumps. I love it that much. As much as I enjoyed John Addison's score for "TOM JONES", I find it mind boggling that it beat out Newman's score for"HOW THE WEST WAS WON". I just cannot conceive this. Newman also provided 19th century music from the era for the movie and it was used beautifully . . . especially in "The Plains" segment. With Reynolds portraying a dance hall performer, she provided moviegoers with entertaining renditions of songs like "What Was Your Name in the East?", "Raise a Ruckus" and the movie's theme song, "Home in the Meadows".

What else can I say about "HOW THE WEST WAS WON"? It is an entertaining movie. I cannot deny this. It featured first rate performances by the leads Debbie Reynolds, Carroll Baker and George Peppard. It featured beautiful photography shot by a team of cinematographers led by William Daniels. And it featured some gorgeous music, which included a superb score written by Alfred Newman. But it is a flawed movie tainted by historical inaccuracy and a story that would have been served best in a television miniseries. I am still astounded that it managed to earn a Best Picture Academy Award.

"J. EDGAR" (2011) Review

 

"J. EDGAR" (2011) Review

Actor/director Clint Eastwood directed his third - or possibly fourth - biopic film, during his career, with "J. EDGAR", an examination of the career and private life of F.B.I. director, J. Edgar Hoover. The movie starred Leonard Di Caprio as the infamous lawman. 

"J. EDGAR" is a 137 minute movie that spanned Hoover's career in a series of flashbacks. The movie begins in the early 1960s, when the famed F.B.I. director is recounting his forty-to-fifty years as a Federal lawman. Hoover's recollections span from his participation in the Palmer Raids - a series of attempts by the U.S. Department of Justice to arrest and deport radical leftists, especially anarchists, from the United States, his appointment as director of the Bureau of Investigations in the 1920s, his "War on Crime" campaign in the 1930s, the Lindbergh Baby kidnapping during the same decade and his investigation of civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr.. The movie also focuses on his use of blackmail to retain his position with the F.B.I., and his relationships with both his mother and Clyde Tolson, his assistant director for the Bureau.

I do not think I would ever regard "J. EDGAR" as one of Eastwood's best work. It had the potential to be a top-notch film. But a slightly incoherent script written by Dustin Lance Black prevented the movie from reaching its potential. One, the movie's use of flashbacks started fine. But somewhere in the movie's second half, this use fell flat. I suspect that my problem with the flashbacks was that Black's script and Eastwood's direction seemed inconsistent and slightly confusing. 

Another problem I had with "J. EDGAR" was its focus on the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case. It was simply too much. Hoover reached the heights of his fame as the Bureau's director, because of the manhunt for Midwestern criminals such as John Dillinger, Alvin Karpis and Charles Floyd. I realize that this topic was also covered in Michael Mann's 2009 crime drama,"PUBLIC ENEMIES". But Eastwood and Black seemed determined to ignore the topic, aside from Hoover's bouts of jealousy toward the agent that hunted down many of these criminals - Melvin Purvis. Instead, Eastwood and Black decided to focus a great deal on the Bureau's participation in the Lindbergh case. Too much, if you want my opinion. The film never touched on the Bureau's dealings or lack of with organized crime. I find this a pity, because one of the most memorable moments in Hoover's career was his so-called "arrest" of gangster Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, a publicity stunt supported by columnist Walter Winchell.

Fortunately, "J. EDGAR" was not a complete loss. I must admit that despite its flaws, it was a solid and entertaining movie. Eastwood's direction seemed to be at its best in scenes that featured anarchist Luigi Galleani's attempted to assassinate Hoover's boss, Mitchell Palmer with a mail bomb; Hoover's meeting with Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf and Charles Lindbergh; a highly charged scene between Hoover and his mother regarding his sexual preference; and especially the scenes featuring Hoover's relationship with Tolson. Most movie or television productions tend to portray the relationship between the two men with a slight tawdriness. Eastwood and Black's portrayal of the Hoover-Tolson relationship struck me as surprisingly tasteful and compassionate - especially since other aspects of Hoover's life and character was portrayed with less sympathy.

I must admit that Tom Stern's cinematography was a solid piece of work, but it did not exactly blow my mind. And if I must be frank, I was not exactly enamored of the film's slightly gray tone. I also felt slightly leery of the makeup created for Di Caprio, Arnie Hammer and Naomi Watts. The makeup did not seem effective in aging the three leads in the 1960s and 70s sequences. However, I was impressed by James J. Murakami's production designs that conveyed the years between 1919 and 1972. I believe the re-creation of the early and mid 20th century would not have been complete without Deborah Hopper's superb costume designs.

The biggest virtue of "J. EDGAR" turned out to be its cast. Once again, Leonardo Di Caprio rose to the occasion and gave a superb portrayal of a complex and some would say, difficult personality. As usual, Di Caprio managed to inject a good deal of sympathy and poignancy into a historical figure that has a negative reputation over the years. I had been impressed by Arnie Hammer's solid portrayal of the Winklevoss twins in last year's "THE SOCIAL NETWORK". But he really outdid himself as Hoover's right hand man, Clyde Tolson - especially in the scenes featuring the pair's relationship. Judi Dench gave her usual solid performance as Hoover's strong-willed mother, Anna Marie Hoover. But in the scene featuring Mrs. Hoover's disapproval of her son's sexual lifestyle, she was brilliant and slightly scary. Naomi Watts gave a solid and slightly melancholic performance as Hoover's faithful secretary, Helen Gandy. "J. EDGAR" also featured solid support from the likes Josh Lucas as the introverted Charles Lindbergh, Dermot Mulroney as the ineffectual New Jersey State Police superintendent Herbert N. Schwarzkopf, Lea Thompson as Lela Rogers (Ginger's mother) Geoff Pierson as the intense Mitchell Palmer and Jeffrey Donovan as Attorney General Robert Kennedy. However, I was a little confused by Donovan's slightly exaggerated take on Kennedy's Boston accent, considering that Donovan is also a native of Massachusetts.

I noticed that "J. EDGAR" did not earn enough to make a profit at the box office. In a way, I can see why. I feel that it was a solid movie that failed to live up to any potential it could have achieved - especially at the hands of a first-rate director like Clint Eastwood. But thanks to his direction, the movie's production designs and a first-rate cast led by the superb Leonardo Di Caprio, "J. EDGAR" still proved to be a somewhat entertaining and solid film.

"THE CONSPIRATOR" (2010/11) Review

 

"THE CONSPIRATOR" (2010/11) Review

Throughout Hollywood history, the topic of the American Civil War has proven to be a volatile mix in terms of box office and television ratings. Robert Redford's new drama about President Abraham Lincoln's assassination called "THE CONSPIRATOR" proved to be the case. 

Directed by Redford and written by James D. Solomon, "THE CONSPIRATOR" told the story about Civil War veteran Frederick Aiken's efforts to prevent Mary Surratt, the only woman charged in the Lincoln assassination during the spring and summer of 1865. Following the 16th President's death and near fatal attack upon Secretary of State William H. Seward, a Maryland-born boarding house owner and Confederate sympathizer named Mary Surratt becomes among those arrested in connection to the crime. The Federal government, under the authority of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, is convinced of Mrs. Surratt's guilt because of her son John's connections to assassin John Wilkes Booth and the other conspirators. Mrs. Surratt's case was not helped by the fact that they had used her Washington D.C. boardinghouse as a meeting place; or that John managed to evade capture by the Federal authorities following the assassination. 

Mrs. Surratt summoned a fellow native of Maryland, U.S. Senator Reverdy Johnson, to defend her before a military tribunal. But political pressure from Stanton and others forced Johnson to recruit Aiken to represent Mrs. Surratt at the tribunal. Unfortunately, the 27 year-old Aiken lacked any previous experience inside a courtroom. The young attorney's initial belief in Mrs. Surratt's guilt and reluctance to defend her disappeared, as he became aware of possible evidence that might exonerate his client and that she was being used as a hostage and bait to lure her son John to the authorities through foul means.

"THE CONSPIRATOR" proved to be one of those Civil War movies that failed to generate any interest at the box office. Most moviegoers ignored it. Many critics bashed it, claiming it was another of Robert Redford's thinly veiled metaphors on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I must be honest. I found this particular criticism worthy of some head scratching. Perhaps those critics had been right. But I must admit that I failed to see the metaphor. The manner in which the Army tribunal railroaded Mary Surratt to a date with a hangman's noose sadly struck me as a very common occurrence throughout history. The wealthy and the powerful have never been reluctant to destroy someone they deemed as a threat or a convenient scapegoat. 

Superficially, Mary Surratt seemed like the type of person toward whom I would harbor any sympathy. The Maryland-born woman had been a Confederate sympathizer. I personally found her political and social beliefs abhorrent. Yet, by revealing the lies and manipulations that she had endured at the hands of the Army tribunal and Federal government, both Redford and screenwriter Solomon did an excellent job in igniting my sympathy. Mary Surratt's experiences also reminded me that they could happen to anyone - even today. The idea of so much power against one individual or a particular group is frightening to behold, regardless if that individual is a slave, a Confederate sympathizer under arrest or an early 21st century citizen. 

Aside from displaying the dangers of absolute powers, "THE CONSPIRATOR" succeeded on two other points - at least for me. I found the movie's basic narrative well written and paced to a certain degree. Both Redford and Solomon had been wise to focus the movie's plot on Mrs. Surratt's case. They could have included the testimonies regarding the other conspirators, but that could have resulted in a great deal of chaos. However, the other defendants' participation in the conspiracy against the Lincoln Administration was utilized in an excellent sequence that conveyed the events surrounding President Lincoln's assassination, the attempt on William Seward's life, John Wilkes Booth's death and the subsequent arrests. With this excellent introduction, the movie smoothly segued into Frederick Aiken's efforts to defend Mrs. Surratt.

However, no movie is perfect. And "THE CONSPIRATOR" had its own imperfections. My main problem centered on three characters - a close friend of Aiken's named Nicholas Baker, who was portrayed by Justin Long; actress Alexis Bledel's portrayal of Aiken's fiancee, Sarah Weston; and the presence of Oscar winner Kevin Kline as Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. My only problem with Bledel was that her performance struck me as mediocre. No amount of romantic scenes or beautiful 19th century costumes could alleviate her performance. Justin Long's presence proved to be a waste of time - at least for me. One, Redford and Solomon included a meaningless scene featuring the aftermath of a nameless Civil War battle with both James McAvoy's Aiken and Long lying on the ground, wounded. What was the point of this scene? To establish Aiken's devotion to the Union cause in the form of his friend, Baker? If so, I feel it failed to achieve this. Long was further wasted as one of the two friends who tried to convince Aiken not to defend Mrs. Surratt. Actually, James Badge Dale, who portrayed the young attorney's other friend, William Hamilton, was used more effectively for this task. Long merely hung around slightly drunk or sober, as he grunted his disapproval toward Aiken. And I cannot understand why Redford even bothered to include his character in the plot. Also wasted was Kevin Kline's portrayal of Edwin H. Stanton. Aside from convincing Reverdy Johnson not to personally defend Mrs. Surratt, barking instructions to government lackeys following the incidents at Ford's Theater and Seward's home, and ignoring Aiken's attempts to contact him; Kline's Stanton did nothing. I had expected some kind of confrontation between Aiken and Stanton . . . again, nothing happened.

Fortunately for "THE CONSPIRATOR", the good outweighed the bad. This was certainly apparent in the rest of the cast. I would never consider Frederick Aiken to be one of James McAvoy's best roles. But I cannot deny that he did an admirable job in transforming Aiken's character from a reluctant legal defender to his client's most ardent supporter. He also infused the right mixture of passion, anger and growing cynicism into his character. I have seen Robin Wright only in a small number of roles. But I do believe that Mary Surratt might prove to be one of her best in a career that has already spanned over twenty years. What truly impressed me about Wright's performance was her ability to avoid portraying Surratt as some ladylike martyr that barely did or said anything to avoid conviction. Although Wright's Surratt did suffer, she also conveyed grit and determination to alleviate her situation.

The majority of the cast for "THE CONSPIRATOR" gave solid performances. There were a few I considered standouts among the supporting cast. One of them turned out to be Danny Huston's intense portrayal of the prosecuting attorney, Joseph Holt. Evan Rachel Wood superbly guided Anna Surratt's character from a defiantly supportive daughter to a young woman on the edge of despair. Despite a slightly unconvincing Maryland accent, Tom Wilkinson gave an intelligent performance as U.S. Senator Reverdy Johnson. I could also say the same about James Badge Dale's portrayal of William Hamilton, one of Aiken's friends, who proved to be a wise adviser. As for actor Toby Kebbell, I have to admit that he made a convincing John Wilkes Booth.

I cannot deny that Robert Redford and screenwriter James Solomon made a few missteps with the plot and at least two characters for "THE CONSPIRATOR". But as I had stated earlier, the virtues outweighed the flaws. Both director and screenwriter provided moviegoers with a fascinating and frightening look into the abuse of power during a famous historic event. And they were backed by excellent performances from the likes of James McAvoy and Robin Wright. I only hope that one day, audiences might overlook Redford's current negative reputation as a filmmaker and give "THE CONSPIRATOR" a second chance.

"THE DEBT" (2011) Review

 

"THE DEBT" (2011) Review

Four years ago, Assaf Bernstein directed a movie about three retired Mossad agents confronted by a challenge from their past in a movie called "THE DEBT". Just recently, John Madden directed a remake of this movie with the same title. Although originally intended for a December 2010 release date, the movie was finally released at the end of August. 

This new version of "THE DEBT" The espionage thriller began in 1997, when two retired Mossad agents, Rachel as shocking news reaches retired Mossad secret agents Rachel Singer and Stefan Gold have received shocking news about their former colleague David Peretz. All three have been celebrated by Israel for thirty-one years for successfully tracking down a Nazi warcriminal named Dieter Vogel back in 1965-55 in East Berlin. However, the reactions of both Rachel and Stefan and several flashbacks questioned whether or not if the team's mission was accomplished.

I have never seen the 2007 version. Which means there is no way I could compare this new version to the older one. But I could say this about "THE DEBT" . . . I thought it was one of the best movies I had seen this past summer. In fact, I thought it was one of the best movies I have seen this year. "THE DEBT" is a superb thriller about a dangerous mission to capture a Nazi war criminal - a mission that led to a labyrinth of lies, guilt, regrets and a desire to correct a mistake. The sequences set in Israel and Russia of the late 1990s and in flashback sequences, 1965-66 East Berlin. The three protagonists in the film proved to be a complicated trio, haunted by not only the Holocaust, but also their personal demons and desires. 

The central figure in the story is Rachel Singer, a former Mossad agent who gave up her career when she became pregnant with her only child. Rachel spends the years 1965 to 1997 being caught between two men - the team's charismatic and womanizing leader, Stefan Gold; and the quiet and intense David Peretz. Both of them became attracted to her. But whereas Stefan viewed Rachel as a brief romance, David began falling in love with her. Rachel felt the same, but turned to Stefan for a one night stand - an act that ended up having major consequences in the relationship between the trio. In a very intense and well directed sequence, the agents finally managed to capture Vogel. But a bad encounter with East German guards at the Wollankstraße Station forced them to take Vogel back to their safe house and guard him, until they can find another way to get him to Israel. What followed was a deliciously acted cat-and-mouse game between manipulative Vogel and his three captors. The shocks and tensions continued, once the story shifted permanently to 1997. In that time frame, Rachel was forced to travel to Russia and clean up a mess caused by the major secret created by the three colleagues back in 1966. I wish I could give away the story, but to do so would give away the plot twists. All I can say is that one of the best aspects of this movie are the plot twists.

The acting was superb. Jesper Christensen, who had impressed me in the last two James Bond movies, was even more fascinating in his subtle performance as the ruthless, yet manipulative Dieter Vogel. Both Tom Wilkinson and Ciarán Hinds gave solid performances as the older Stefan and David. But the real star of the 1997 sequences was Helen Mirren, who was wonderful as an older Rachel, who believed that she had finally put the past behind her. She also proved that one could still be a first-rate female action star at the age of 65/66. If Helen Mirren was the star of the 1997 sequences, the real stars of the entire movie were Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington and Marton Csokas. In my review of 2010's "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS", I had not been kind to Chastain's performance in that movie. A lot of my criticism had to do with how her character was written. But I must admit that she was superb as the younger Rachel, who found herself caught up not only in a deadly mission with a dangerous adversary; but also in an emotionally confusing situation between two men. Cskokas gave an enlightening performance as the colorful and commanding Stefan, whose extroverted facade hid an ambitious drive that made him willing to do anything to maintain his career. It was good to see Sam Worthington in a first-rate role after nearly two years. His portrayal of David Peretz was probably the most intense in the entire episode. Worthington did a superb job of conveying not only David's quietly expressed desire for Rachel, but also his reluctance to get emotionally involved with others following the loss of his entire family during the Holocaust.

If "THE DEBT" had one flaw - at least for me, it was the ending. I have to be honest. I usually do not mind if a movie ends on an ambiguous or vague note . . . as long as it works. For me, such an ending worked for the 2010 movie, "INCEPTION". The vague note on which "THE DEBT" ended, failed to work for me. It simply did not feel right and I had the suspicion that either Madden or screenwriters Matthew Vaughn, Kris Thykier, Eduardo Rossoff were trying to be just a little too artistic. And "THE DEBT" struck me as the type of story that did not need an ambiguous ending of that kind.

Despite the movie's unnecessarily vague ending, I must admit that I truly enjoyed "THE DEBT". It had an exciting and fascinating story that was served well by the screenwriters, director John Madden and a superb cast led by Helen Mirren and Sam Worthington. As I had stated earlier, it became one of my favorite movies of both the summer and of this year so far.

"WESTWARD HO": Introduction

 

Below is the introduction to an article about Hollywood's depiction about the westward migration via wagon trains in the United States - especially during the 1840s: 


"WESTWARD HO!": Introduction 

I. History vs. Hollywood

Between 2001 and 2004, the A&E Channel used to air a series called "HISTORY vs. HOLLYWOOD". Each episode featured experts that were interviewed about the historical accuracy of a film or television special that was based on a historical event. These experts or historians would examine a newly released film - usually a period drama - and comment on the historical accuracy featured in the story. Not surprisingly, most productions would receive a verdict of "both Hollywood fiction and historical fact".

A rising demand for more historical accuracy seemed to have become very prevalent in recent years. I cannot explain this demand. And if I must be honest, I do not know if I would always agree. If such accuracy ever got in the way of a whopping good story, I believe it should be tossed in favor of the story. Many of William Shakespeare's dramas have proven to be historically inaccurate. I can think of a good number of well-regarded productions that I would never consider to be completely accurate as far as history is concerned - "GONE WITH THE WIND" (1939), "GLORY" (1989),"ENIGMA" (2001) and "THE TUDORS" (2007-2010).

All of this brings me to this article's main topic - namely the depiction of the 19th century western migration in various movies and television productions. I thought it would be interesting to examine five productions and see how they compare to historical accuracy. I will focus upon two movies and three television miniseries:

*"HOW THE WEST WAS WON" (1962)

*"THE WAY WEST" (1967)

*"CENTENNIAL: The Wagon and the Elephant" [Episode 3] (1978-79)

*"THE CHISHOLMS" (1979)

*"INTO THE WEST: Manifest Destiny" [Episode 2] (2005)


II. The Essentials of Western Travel

Before I start making comparisons, I might as well focus on the correct essentials needed by westbound emigrants during their trek to either Oregon, California or other destinations. The essentials are the following:

1. Farm wagon/Prairie schooner vs. Conestoga wagon - The Conestoga wagon is well-known among those who study American history during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. It was a heavy, broad-wheeled covered wagon used extensively during that period in the United States east of the Mississippi River and Canada to transport goods up to 8 tons. It was designed to resemble a boat in order to help it cross rivers and streams. 

However, the Conestoga wagon was considered too large and bulky for the 2,000 miles journey between Western Missouri and the West Coast - especially for the teams of stock pulling the wagon. It was highly recommended for emigrants to use regular farm wagons. The farm wagon was primarily used to transport goods. However, small children, the elderly, and the sick/or injured rode in them. But since the wagons had no suspension and the roads were rough, many people preferred to walk, unless they had horses to ride. The wagon - depending on luck - was sturdy enough for the 2,000 to 3,000 westbound trek. More importantly, the wagon would not wear down the team of animals pulling it.


2. Draft animals - The westbound emigrants depended upon draft animals to haul their wagons for the long trek. Horses were out of the questions. A single rider could travel to Oregon or California astride a horse. But horses were not sturdy enough for the 2,000 miles trek and would die before reaching the end of the journey. It was recommended that emigrants use oxen or mules to pull their wagons.

Both oxen and mules were considered sturdy enough for the long trek. However, most would recommend oxen to haul a wagon, for they were cheaper and could survive slightly better on the grazing found along the trails. Mules could do the same, but at a lesser rate. But they were more expensive than oxen. They had a tendency to be temperamental. And they were more inclined to attract the attention of Native Americans.


3. Supplies and Goods - It was very essential for emigrants to haul supplies and goods during their long, westward trek. Upon leaving Independence, Missouri; there were very little opportunities to purchase food and supplies. The only locations that offered such opportunities to purchase more goods were a small number of trading and military outposts along the western trails. However, many emigrants attempted to bring along furniture, family heirlooms and other valuable possessions. They realized it was wiser to rid said possessions in order to lighten their wagon loads. And this would explain why these discarded possessions practically littered the major emigrant trails during the second half of the 19th century.


4. Western Outposts - As I had stated earlier, westbound emigrants encountered very little opportunities to re-stock on supplies during their journey west. Only a series of trading or military outposts on the western plains offered emigrants opportunities for more supplies. Emigrants encountered Fort Laramie (present day eastern Wyoming), Fort Hall (present day Idaho) and Fort Laramie after 1848 (present day Nebraska) along the Oregon/California Trails. Along the Santa Fe Trail, they would eventually encounter Fort Leavenworth (present day northeastern Kansas). Fort Bent (present day southeastern Colorado) and eventually Santa Fe in the New Mexico Territory.


5. Native American Encounters - The portrayal of emigrants' encounters with Native Americans during the western trek could either be chalked up to Hollywood exaggeration, American racism or a mixture of both. But many movie and television productions about the western migration tend to feature large scale attacks upon wagon trains by Native American warriors. One, such attacks never happened - at least as far as I know. The various nations and tribes possessed too much sense to attack a wagon train that was likely to be well-armed. And the number of Native Americans portrayed in these cinematic attacks tend to be ridiculously large. A small band of warriors might be inclined to steal some horses or stock in the middle of the night, or attack a lone wagon traveling on the plains for the same reason. However, westbound emigrants either socialized or traded with the Native Americans they encountered. Or perhaps some trigger-happy emigrant or more might be inclined to take pot shots at a lone rider or two. But large scale attacks by Native Americans ended up being figments of a filmmaker's imagination.


In the following article, I will focus upon the history accuracy or lack thereof featured in 1962's "HOW THE WEST WAS WON".