“THE CHISHOLMS” (1979): Chapter IV Commentary

“THE CHISHOLMS” (1979): CHAPTER IV Commentary

We finally come to the fourth chapter of the 1979 miniseries, “THE CHISHOLMS”. And like the first chapter, it had a running time of at least 90 minutes. This fourth chapter marked the last episode of the actual miniseries and the end of Evan Hunter’s 1976 novel . . . despite the Chisholms’ story continuing in a short-running television series.

Chapter IV began some thirty seconds before Chapter III ended. What happened in the previous episode? Hadley and Minerva Chisholm made the decision to leave Independence (in western Missouri) and continued their family’s western journey along the Overland Trail without their two older sons, Will and Gideon. Why? The latter two had left the family to search for one Lester Hackett, who had stolen Will’s horse near St. Louis. During this time, the Chisholm couple and their other three children had accompanied a former Army scout named Timothy Oates, the latter’s Pawnee wife and a family from Baltimore named Comyn. Upon hearing a rumor about fever on a wagon train that was ahead of them, the Comyns returned east. Oates and his wife Youngest Daughter eventually bid the Chisholms good-bye and headed for her family’s village. Meanwhile, Will and Gideon spent a month on a prison work gang in Iowa as punishment for “trespassing” on the farm of Lester Hackett’s mother. Following their release, they encountered a wounded Ojibwa woman named Keewedinok, who had been staying at a Missouri farm that was attacked by drunken trappers. Will and Gideon allowed Keewedinok to accompany them as far as Fort Laramie. Being alone on the trail, the Chisholms attracted the attention of a small band of Pawnee warriors who wanted their horses and the women. Chapter III ended with the Pawnees’ initial attack.

In the end, the attack proved to be brief, brutal and tragic. The Chisholm family managed to kill at least three of the Pawnee warriors. Only one – Teetonkah (the one with the Wolf’s Skin) – managed to survive after Minerva attacked him in defense. Unfortunately, Hadley sustained a blow to the head . . . and young Annabel sustained a mortal blow to her chest. She managed to survive for a day or two before she finally died from her wound not far from one of the Oregon Trail landmarks (Scott’s Bluff, I believe). Eventually, the traumatized family reached the Fort Laramie trading post. Meanwhile, Will and Gideon Chisholm continued their trek west in the company of the widowed Keewedinok. In a surprising twist, the trio encountered a tragic scenario on the plains. The two Kansa couples who had encountered their family in Chapter III were found dead and their teepees burned. Actually, only one survived – the Kansa man who had admired the Chisholms’ mules. During this moment, the Chisholm brothers discovered that the Kansa couples had been attacked by white men. And Will eventually learned that that the men who had attacked the Missouri cabin where they had found Keewedinok, were also white. One or more of them had raped her. Following this revelation, Will and Keewedinok grew increasingly attracted to each other. But their newfound emotions were eventually tested when trio finally reached Fort Laramie and the remaining members of the Chisholm family. Will’s new romance led to an estrangement between him and the racist Hadley. And the Chisholms received a bigger surprise with the unexpected arrival of one Lester Hackett at the fort.

When I first saw “THE CHISHOLMS”, I found it odd that the Virginia family had only made it as far as Fort Laramie. I could not understand why they did not continue their journey to California. I eventually realized that certain factors prevented this. One, they were very far behind by time on the trail before Will and Gideon had appeared at Laramie with Keewedinok. It would have been unwise for them to continue their journey west with no guide or without the accompaniment of other wagons . . . especially after what happened to Annabel. And by the time they reached the eastern side of the Sierra Mountains foothills, a late fall weather would have made the mountain crossing very dangerous. Remaining within the safety of Fort Laramie seemed like the smart move to make. They would have to wait until the following summer for the arrival of another overland wagon train, if they had wanted to continue to California. I also suspected that Annabel’s death had traumatized them so much – especially Hadley and Minerva – that they were unwilling to continue west. But Hadley was also reluctant to return to Virginia – especially since their best land had fallen into the hands of the Cassidy family. And they would have to travel between Laramie and Independence without a guide and other wagons. At that point, Hadley and Minerva were determined to remain near Fort Laramie.

But certain factors threatened their plans. One, their sons – especially Gideon – were still anxious to continue west. Actually, I am not certain about Beau. At least I was not at first. After all, he was the only son who had experienced the Pawnee attack. He may have been less eager than Will or Gideon. Two, with Will and Hadley estranged over the former’s relationship with Keewedinok, it was not that surprising that Will also longed to leave the fort and continue west to California. In the end, so much happened in the following months – Lester Hackett’s reunion with the Chisholms, the birth of his and Bonnie Sue’s baby, the end of Will and Hadley’s estrangement, the appearance of Teetonkah aka Wolf’s Skin at Fort Laramie, and the near fatal attack on Keewedinok. I think these string of events, along with enough time finally led the family – especially Hadley and Minerva – to come to terms with Annabel’s death. And I believe this, along with the realization that their children planned to join the first wagon train to arrive in the following summer, finally led the couple to continue their journey to Califorina. Looking back, the Chisholms’ journey had been tainted by bad luck, bad timing and bad decisions since the moment they lost their most fertile corn field to the Cassidy family. With no such impediments and their emotional acceptance of Annabel’s death preventing them from continuing on to California, it was not surprising to see Hadley, Minerva and the rest of the Chisholms joining the next westbound wagon train in the summer of 1845.

I have to be honest. Chapter IV is not my favorite episode in the miniseries. It did feature scenes and performances that I truly enjoyed. This was certainly the case while watching Will and Keewedinok grow closer, as they traveled west with Gideon to Fort Laramie. I have to give kudos to Ben Murphy and Sandra Griego for making this an enjoyable and emotional segment to watch. Another romantic sequence that I found satisfying was Lester Hackett’s renewed courtship of Bonnie Sue, thanks to Stacy Nelkin and Charles Frank’s performances. Both Robert Preston and Murphy acted the hell out of one scene that featured Hadley and Will’s bitter quarrel over Keewedinok. And both Preston and Rosemary Harris were superb in one scene in which Hadley and Minerva had finally decided to join their children on the continuing trek to California. The episode also featured excellent supporting performances from James Van Patten, Brian Keith, Christopher Allport, Billy Drago and Susan Swift, who gave a very effective performance during Annabel’s death scene.

Chapter IV featured less action or conflict than the previous two chapters. But it was bookmarked by two action sequences featuring Drago’s character, Teetonkah. I have already described the Pawnees’ attack on the Chisholms’ lone wagon at the episode’s beginning. Near the end of the episode, Teetonkah had arrived at Fort Laramie and immediately spotted the Chisholms’ cabin and the ponies that the family had taken from him and his deceased comrades. He managed to convince a few braves to steal back the ponies and a few other items from the family. During this robbery, Keewedinok tried to stop him and was badly wounded. This led to a quite interesting and brutal fight between Teetonkah and Will that struck me as well choreographed.

Although I have possessed a VHS copy of “THE CHISHOLMS” for years, I was very happy to finally get a DVD copy of the miniseries. Even after many years, it still remained both enjoyable and fascinating to me. And frankly, I feel it is one of the best productions about westward migration in the mid-19th century. You can read the 1976 novel that it is based upon. But for me, I feel that this television adaptation is the better version. And one can thank David Dortort, Evan Hunter, director Mel Stuart and a superb cast led by Robert Preston and Rosemary Harris. The miniseries must have been very popular when it aired in the early spring of 1979. For it generated a short-lived television series that I plan to eventually view.

“BEECHAM HOUSE” (2019) Episode Ranking

Below is my ranking of the episodes from the 2019 ITV series, “BEECHAM HOUSE”. Created by Paul Mayeda Berges, Shahrukh Husain and Gurinder Chadha, and directed by Chadha; the six-episode series starred Tom Bateman:

“BEECHAM HOUSE” (2019) EPISODE RANKING

1. (1.03) “Episode 3” – In 1795 India, the Moghul Emperor Shah Allam I has postponed former East India Company officer John Meecham’s trading license at the request of French mercenary General Castillon. In order to regain his license, John has a gold statue commissioned for the Empress, but his plans are nearly derailed by the betrayal of someone close.

2. (1.01) “Episode 1” – John arrives at his new Delhi mansion, determined to leave his past behind and start a new life as a trader. But he brings along with him, his entourage and his biracial infant son, who must be kept hidden.

3. (1.04) “Episode 4” – John’s former sister-in-law Chandrika visits John’s room late at night, fueling suspicions about their relationship. His mother’s companion, Violet Woodhouse, witnesses the clandestine meeting and informs the former, Henrietta Beecham.

4. (1.06) “Episode 6” – In the series finale, John figures out his betrayer, while others try to get help for his release from the Emperor’s prison. Not long after his release, a mysterious force attack his mansion.

5. (1.02) “Episode 2” – John and his old friend/partner Samuel Parker find the former’s brother and East India Company officer Daniel Beecham recovering from a wound at a brothel. John brings Daniel to his mansion to heal. Chandrika arrives at Beecham House to visit her nephew. She throws the house into chaos with her demands and clashes with Henrietta.

6. (1.05) “Episode 5” – John is shocked to discover that the women he has developed romantic feelings for – Margaret Osbourne, governess for his neighbor Murad Bag – has left Delhi. Before he can react, John finds himself framed for theft and arrested by the Emperor’s court.

Issues Regarding “WANDAVISION”

ISSUES REGARDING “WANDAVISION”

Recently, I did a re-watch of the DisneyPlus/Marvel Cinematic Universe limited series, “WANDAVISION”. After viewing the penultimate episode, (1.08) “Previously On”, I realized I had a few issues with the series.

The seventh episode, (1.07) “Breaking the Fourth Wall” ended with this revelation that the long-living witch Agatha Harkness was behind the whole psychic anomaly surrounding the fictional town of Westview, New Jersey. Yet the revelations from the flashbacks forced upon former Avenger Wanda Maximoff by Harkness in “Previously On” revealed that . . . yes, Wanda had originated the anomaly. She started it in a moment of anger and grief over the permanent death of the synthezoid and former Avenger named Vision. In other words, Agatha’s claim in “Breaking the Fourth Wall” that she had been behind the whole incident merely contradicted what Wanda’s flashbacks had revealed. So, what was Agatha’s role over the Westview incident? An enabler? A disrupter? As it turned out . . . both. Agatha had occasionally disrupted Wanda’s anomaly in order to learn the true nature of the latter’s powers and steal them. This means that Agatha’s little “confession”, “It Was Agatha All Along” was nothing more than a lie. A contradiction. Something to serve as a cliffhanger for “Breaking the Fourth Wall”, perhaps? Regardless, I thought it was a sloppy move on the part of screenwriter Cameron Squires and showrunner Jac Schaeffer.

While viewing “WANDAVISION”, it occurred to me that it basically seemed like a character study – touched by science-fiction and magic. Which leads me to wonder why the MCU thought it was a good idea to convey this narrative via a nine-episode series. Since nearly every episode is roughly 25 minutes, I have come to the conclusion that this story is roughly four hours. Or nearly four hours. Four hours for a character study? Seriously? Do not get me wrong. I have a good opinion of the series’ narrative. But I found this 25-minute episode format rather frustrating. And unnecessary for this kind of story. “WANDAVISION” could have easily been told via a motion picture with a 100-minute running time.

As for the television sitcom format that the series used to convey its narrative – I never warmed up to it. To be honest, I found it distracting and nothing more than a clever gimmick. Mind you, “WANDAVISION” did not remain stuck in one particular time period. The narrative progressed from the 1950s to the 2000s with each episode. My family and I are in the middle of a re-watch of “AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.” Season Seven. This was the season in which the protagonists had skipped through history trying to prevent the Big Bads from prematurely destroying S.H.I.E.L.D. My sister pointed out that it was possible the writers of “WANDAVISION” had copied the time travel narrative from “S.H.I.E.L.D.” Season Seven and used it to convey the television sitcom formats from the 1950s to the 2000s or 2010s. In other words, Kevin Feige, Jac Schaeffer and the series’ writers may have slightly plagiarized Jed Whedon and Maurissa Tancharoen. That is something to think about.

Also, one particular episode featured a major blooper. I am referring to the sixth episode, (1.06) “All-New Halloween Spooktacular!”. The episode featured the marquee for the town’s movie theater:

First of all, when is this particular episode set? The 1990s or the 2000s? One of the films listed on theater’s marquee, “THE PARENT TRAP”, a remake of the 1961 Disney film, had been released in 1998. The other film listed, the award-winning animated film, “THE INCREDIBLES”, had been released in 2004. So, did Wanda set the events of “All-New Halloween Spooktacular” in the 1990s? Or did she skip a decade and set it the 2000s? Inquiring minds want to know. Regardless, this was an obvious blooper that no one bothered to comment on. I would bet that one person or more will come up with an excuse for this obvious blooper.

Do not get me wrong. I enjoyed “WANDAVISION”. But there were aspects of it that I found frustrating. I believe the story, which basically strikes me as a character study, could have been more effectively told via a movie, instead of a nine-episode series. I found the television sitcom formats distracting and unnecessary. And I have some issues regarding the Agatha Harkness character and an obvious blooper from the series’ sixth episode. But I must admit that “WANDAVISION” has proven to be among the better MCU productions from the past few years.

Five Favorite Episodes of “STAR TREK VOYAGER” Season Four (1997-1998)

Below is a list of my five favorite episodes from Season Four of “STAR TREK VOYAGER”. Created by Rick Berman, Michael Piller and Jeri Taylor; the series starred Kate Mulgrew as Captain Kathryn Janeway:

FIVE FAVORITE EPISODES OF “STAR TREK VOYAGER” SEASON FOUR (1997-1998)

1. (4.07) “Scientific Method” – When a string of bizarre illnesses afflicts Voyager’s crew, the Doctor, Lieutenant B’Elanna Torres and new crewman Seven-of-Nine uncover a team of alien researchers existing out of phase and performing medical experiments on the crew. Rosemary Forsyth and Annette Helde guest starred.

2. (4.16) “Prey” – The crew of Voyager come to he aid of a wounded Hirogen before discovering that his hunting prey, a lost member of Species 8472, has boarded the ship. Tony Todd guest-starred.

3. (4.14) “Message in a Bottle” – Using an abandoned Hirogen communications net, Voyager sends their Chief Medical Officer, the Doctor, to a Federation ship in the Alpha Quadrant, where he discovers has been taken over by Romulans. Andy Dick and Judson Scott guest starred.

4. (4.08-4.09) “Year of Hell” – Voyager comes across a Krenim time ship that is wiping whole species from existence in order to change the existing timeline. Kurtwood Smith and Peter Marx guest starred.

5. (4.18-4.19) “The Killing Game” – When Voyager is captured by the Hirogens, it is transformed into a massive holodeck, so that the Hirogens can hunt members of the crew who have been fitted with new identities in various scenarios based upon Federation history. Danny Goldring, J. Paul Boehmer and Mark Metcalf guest starred.

Honorable Mentioned: (4.23) “Living Witness” – The Doctor’s backup program awakens in the museum of an alien culture seven hundred years in the future, where Voyager is thought to have been a passing warship full of cold-blooded killers in which the latter interfered in a war between the planet’s two ethnic groups. Tim Russ directed, and Henry Woronicz guest starred.

“MANK” (2020) Review

“MANK” (2020) Review

When it comes to biopics about Hollywood history, I must admit that I have a slight addiction to them. I really enjoy reading about Hollywood history. And I especially enjoy reading about the industry’s so-called “Golden Age”. So, when I learned about the upcoming release of “MANK”, a biopic about Hollywood screenwriter, Herman J. Mankiewicz, I was pretty eager to see it.

However . . . I never got the chance to watch “MANK” in movie theaters during the fall/winter of 2020-2021. “MANK” had the bad luck to be released while the entire world was in the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although Netflix had released the film in theaters for a limited period in November 2020, the streaming service/production company eventually released it on its streaming service the following month. Because of this, a good number of months had passed before I had eventually watched it on television.

“MANK” began in 1940, when the then young wunderkind Orson Welles hired veteran screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz to write the screenplay for his new movie, “CITIZEN KANE”. Unfortunately, Mankiewicz is in Victorville, CA; recovering from a broken leg he had sustained in a car crash. With the assistance of his secretary Rita Alexander, he becomes aware of the similarities between the movie’s main character and newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. This awareness not only inspired Mankiewicz to work on Welles’ screenplay, but also led him to recall his history with Hearst, the latter’s mistress, Marion Davies; and the smear campaign against Upton Sinclair’s 1934 California gubernatorial campaign.

Since “MANK” is not a documentary, but a historical drama, I knew that its narrative would not be completely accurate. However, I do believe that screenwriter Jack Fincher and his brother, director David Fincher, took a lot of liberties in regard to historical accuracies. Perhaps too much. Yes, the movie featured historical accuracies that included Mankiewicz’s car accident and broken leg, his employment with both Paramount Pictures and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Upton Sinclair’s bid for Governor of California in 1934 and of course, Mankiewicz’s collaboration with Welles and John Houseman on “CITIZEN KANE”.

However, the main problem with “MANK” is that Jack Fincher tried to connect the efforts to undermine Upton Sinclair’s gubernatorial campaign with Mankiewicz’s screenplay for “CITIZEN KANE”. And it did not exactly work. It failed to work due to Mankiewicz’s political beliefs. Considering that Sinclair had ran for governor as a Democrat, it seemed implausible that Mank would have been that upset over the state’s business leaders – which included movie studio chief Louis B. Mayer, studio producer Irving Thalberg; and newspaper magnates like Hearst and Harry Chandler – going out of their way to undermine Sinclair’s campaign. Mankiewicz’s politics tend to skewer toward conservative, except when it came to fascism.

It seems quite obvious that Jack Fincher needed an explanation for why Mankiewicz had been willing to write “CITIZEN KANE”, a scathing portrait of William Randolph Hearst. So he invented one. But you know what? I find myself wondering what topic had really caught the Finchers’ attention – Mankiewicz’s connection with Hearst, Davies and “CITIZEN KANE”; or the 1934 California gubernatorial election. Because honestly . . . it seemed as if both screenwriter and director were more interested in the latter. If that was the case, then the Fincher brothers should have solely focused the movie’s topic on the election.

I have another quibble about “MANK”. One I found some of the dialogue in the film’s first half hour a bit too stylized for my tastes. In one early scene, it seemed as if the Finchers had tried too hard to recapture a West Coast version of the Algonquin Round Table. Also, why did the Finchers shot this film in black-and-white? What was the point? Because to me, this decision to film in black-and-white seemed like another attempt at a homage to Hollywood’s Golden Age via a gimmick. And I am getting weary of gimmicks – especially unnecessary ones in Hollywood productions.

Otherwise, I did not have a problem with “MANK”. There are at least three reasons why I ended up enjoying this film. One, the movie featured a first-rate character study of Herman J. Mankiewicz. I have read a good deal about him. Granted, the movie was not completely honest in the writer’s characterization. The latter’s political beliefs would have never led him to get upset, let alone outraged over the campaign against Upton Sinclair. However, David Fincher’s screenplay did a very admirable job in capturing Mankiewicz’s other traits – including his wit, his addictions and air of weariness. If I must be frank, I believe Gary Oldman’s superb performance achieved this even more than the Finchers’ screenplay and direction.

Two, although I found the creation of “CITIZEN KANE” rather interesting, it did not strike me as particularly unique. Well . . . I take that back. “MANK” did tell this story specifically from the screenwriter’s point-of-view. The 1999 HBO film, “RKO 281”, told this story mainly from Orson Welles’ point-of-view. However, the movie’s depiction of Hollywood’s connection to California’s 1934 gubernatorial election struck me as the film’s more interesting and original aspect. This was especially apparent in scenes that featured a montage of the phony newsreels criticizing Sinclair and the election’s final night.

One aspect of “MANK” really impressed me – namely the performances featured in the film. They either ranged from competent performances from the likes of Tom Pelphrey as Joseph Mankiewicz, Charles Dance as William Randolph Hearst, Ferdinand Kingsley as Irving Thalberg, Joseph Cross as Charles Lederer, Toby Leonard Moore as David Selznick, Sam Troughton as John Houseman, Bill Nye as Upton Sinclair and Arliss Howard as Louis B. Mayer. Mind you, I believe there were times when Howard’s performance threatened to become a bit too theatrical. But I still enjoyed it. I was very impressed by the performances from Tuppence Middleton as Sara Mankiewicz, Tom Burke as Orson Welles and Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies. As much as Seyfriend’s performance impressed me, I do not believe she had deserved an Oscar or any other acting nomination for her performance. I do not believe her performance was that exceptional.

There were a handful of performances that I really enjoyed. I thought Jamie McShane gave a very emotional performance as test director Shelly Metcalf, who shot the anti-Sinclair newsreels. Frankly, Lily Collins’ performance as Mankiewicz’s no-nonsense secretary Rita Alexander impressed me a lot more than Seyfriend’s performance. And I thought she and the leading man had managed to create a superb screen chemistry. Although I believed that Seyfriend’s acting nominations were undeserved, I cannot say the same for Gary Oldman’s performance as Herman J. Mankiewicz. I thought he was superb as the screenwriting icon agonizing over his earlier apathy toward the governor’s election, while struggling over his alcoholism and creation of the “CITIZEN KANE” screenplay. He truly deserved his acting nominations – especially in one scene in which the main character went into a drunken rant against the Hollywood machine and Hearst.

“MANK” was definitely not the best movie of 2020. Perhaps it was one of the better ones. I still believe it could have been a better film if David and Jack Fincher had not attempted to connect the creation of “CITIZEN KANE” with California’s 1934 governor election. But its re-creation of the latter proved to be one of the film’s highlights. And the movie also benefited from excellent direction from David Fincher and excellent performances from a cast led by the always superb Gary Oldman. Honestly, I would have no qualms about buying a DVD copy of this film.