“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.

“STAR WARS: EPISODE III – REVENGE OF THE SITH” (2005) Review

“STAR WARS: EPISODE III – REVENGE OF THE SITH” (2005) Review

Released during the summer of 2005, “STAR WARS: EPISODE III – REVENGE OF THE SITH” marked the sixth and final time producer-director-writer George Lucas served as creator of a “STAR WARS” movie. By an ironic twist, the movie served as the third film in terms of the series timeline.

Set three years after “STAR WARS: EPISODE II – ATTACK OF THE CLONES” and the beginning of the Clone Wars, “REVENGE OF THE SITH” begin with Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi and Jedi Knight Anakin Skywalker leading a mission to rescue Chancellor Palpatine from the clutches of Separatist leader and former Jedi Master Count Dooku aka Darth Tyrannus and his leading military commander, General Grievous. The rescue mission is besieged with difficulties. First, the two Jedi are forced to fight a difficult duel against Dooku and later, are briefly captured by General Grievous. But the pair prevail and return the kidnapped Palpatine to Coruscant via a crash landing skillfully executed by Anakin. The latter is reunited with his secret wife, Senator Padmé Amidala, who reveals she is pregnant. At first excited, Anakin begins to have premonitions of Padmé dying in childbirth.

Fearful of Padmé dying, Anakin seek advice from Jedi Master Yoda on how do deal with his anxieties. But Yoda’s advice leaves him unsatisfied. Even worse, Obi-Wan reveals that the Jedi Council are suspicious of Palpatine maintaining power of the Senate and asks Anakin to spy on the politician. Anakin is against the idea, due to his friendship with Palpatine and because he finds the mission dishonorable. His opinion of the Jedi Council sinks even further when Palpatine appoints Anakin as his representative on the Jedi Council . . . and the latter is denied the rank of Master. Between his anxieties over Padmé’s pregnancy and fate and loss of faith toward the Jedi Order, Anakin finds himself listening more and more to the insidious advice of Chancellor Palpatine.

Most fans of the “STAR WARS” view “REVENGE OF THE SITH” as the best film in the Prequel Trilogy. I could make assumptions on why the 2005 film is considered the best of the second trilogy, but it would be arrogant of me to do so. Unlike the Original Trilogy, it is the third and last film of this trilogy that proved to be the darkest. In fact, “REVENGE OF THE SITH” is probably the darkest film in the entire franchise . . . so far. And that is not surprising, considering that it marked the downfalls of Anakin Skywalker, the Jedi Order and the Galactic Republic. Many fans have dumped the blame on Chancellor-turned-Emperor Palpatine for being responsible for the downfall of a Jedi Knight, a religious order and a political body. I wish I could agree with them . . . but I cannot. I would say that Palpatine exploited their weaknesses, fears and bad choices in his bid for supreme power. But he would have never had the opportunity for that grasp for power without the mistakes of the Galactic Senate, the Republic and the Jedi Order. There are some who believed that he “used the Force” to cloud his real identity and actions from the Jedi Council. I find that ridiculous . . . even for a science-fiction/fantasy tale like “STAR WARS”.

Sometimes, I get the feeling that certain fans simply cannot accept the idea that the so-called “good guys” would make such erroneous mistakes that would help lead to their downfalls. Unless said “good guys” were Anakin Skywalker and Jedi Master Mace Windu. Due to the foreknowledge of Anakin’s fate as Sith apprentice Darth Vader, many were willing to accept him capable of making serious mistakes. And due to Mace Windu’s unpopularity with many fans – especially those who are incapable of accepting Samuel L. Jackson in the role of a major member of the Jedi Order – they were willing to accept him as flawed. Yet, many of these same fans seemed unwilling to accept the flawed nature of characters like Senator Padmé Amidala and especially Jedi Masters Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda. Padmé is regarded – to her great detriment – as some idealized female character. And both Obi-Wan and Yoda are highly regarded by the fans, due to their major roles in the older trilogy. In fact, I find this attitude so annoying that I am almost willing to break my earlier edit about making assumptions regarding the fans’ opinion of “REVENGE OF THE SITH”. Okay . . . I am willing to do so. I am willing to make an arrogant assumption. And here it is. I suspect that many STAR WARS fans are more acceptable of this third film, due to Anakin Skywalker becoming Darth Vader. It is the event that many had been looking forward to since the Prequel Trilogy movies first hit the movie screens back in 1999.

For me, “REVENGE OF THE SITH” was not merely about Anakin’s love of Padmé and his fear of losing her finally led to his transformation into Sith Lord Darth Vader. For me, it was also watching the last chapter in which the major characters made their final decisions that helped Chancellor Palpatine aka Darth Sidious become leader of the Galactic Empire. Watching these major characters make mistake after mistake, along with crime and crime was fascinating to watch. Even some of the most minor decisions – like Padmé Amidala’s insistence that her marriage to Anakin remain a secret – struck me as a prime example of the mistakes the characters made, due to their attachments. Most fans tend to claim that the Jedi – especially Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi – harbored no attachments to anyone or anything. But I feel differently. I believe the movie made it clear that the Jedi – and all of them – were attached to the Order and were willing to do anything to maintain it, the Republic and the Order’s position within the Republic.

“REVENGE OF THE SITH” featured some very memorable scenes. I was especially impressed by the entire sequence featuring Obi-Wan and Anakin’s rescue of Palpatine from Count Dooku and General Grievous; which featured a hilarious moment with R2-D2 and was capped by a fantastic crash landing on Coruscant. Obi-Wan’s experiences on Utapau struck me as interesting . . . especially his duel with Grievous. Anakin and the clonetroopers’ attack on the Jedi Temple sent chills down my spine. So did that final confrontation between Palpatine, Mace Windu and Anakin inside the chancellor’s office. The twin duels of Anakin vs. Obi-Wan, and Yoda vs. Palpatine practically took my breath away. I was really impressed by Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christensen’s work in their fight scene. I have seen clips of the two actors practicing their duel . . . and yes, they are that good. However, I cannot help but wonder which scenes that the majority of the fans prefer – the two lightsaber duels or the bone-chilling Order 66 sequence that featured the destruction of many Jedi padawans, Knights and Masters. By the way, Lucas shot that sequence as a montage and I must say that his direction, along with Ben Burtt and Roger Barton’s editing, and John Williams’ score made this the most haunting sequence in the entire Saga.

The movie also featured some intimate scenes – both dramatic and comedic – that struck me as a positive addition to its story. Both Ian McDiarmid and Hayden Christensen gave outstanding performances in many of the scenes between Palpatine and Anakin . . . especially the opera scene in which the former revealed the circumstances behind the death of the former’s master, Darth Plagueis. Both Christensen and Natalie Portman did excellent jobs in conveying the love between their characters and the lack of communication that seemed to plague the Skywalker/Amidala marriage – including one scene in which Padmé expressed her sympathy toward the Separatists. Both McDiarmid and Samuel L. Jackson were excellent in the final confrontation scene between Palpatine and Master Windu. Christensen and McGregor were outstanding in two particular scenes between Anakin and Obi-Wan. I not only enjoyed their performances in one scene in which the pair argued over Obi-Wan’s request that Anakin spy on Palpatine, but also when the Jedi Master and his former padawan exchanged their last friendly conversation before Obi-Wan’s departure for Utapau. And I must admit that I found it nice to see not only the Wookie homeworld Kashyyyk, but also Peter Mayhew as Chewbacca.

As usual for any STAR WARS movie, “REVENGE OF THE SITH” featured some outstanding visual effects. If I could pinpoint the main person responsible for the movie’s visual and special effects, I would kowtow at that person’s feet. First of all, I was impressed not only by the effects used in the Battle of Coruscant opening and the crash landing that marked the sequence’s ending; but also the two duels that dominated the movie’s last half hour. The art direction team led by Peter Russell, along with cinematographer David Tattersall and the special effects team provided eye-catching scenes like those featured below that literally made me drool:

Speaking of art that made me drool, I have to bring up Trisha Biggar’s costume designs. Naturally, I will not repeat myself about how much I admire her work. And I will not bring up the fact that I consider it a crime that she never received any Oscar nominations for her work. However, below are two examples of her work featured in “REVENGE OF THE SITH”:

Was there anything about “REVENGE OF THE SITH” that I found troubling or questionable? Well . . . yes. As much as I admired the performances in the movie, there were the usual cheesy dialogue found in a STAR WARS movie. This was especially apparent in a few performances that struck me as particularly hammy. Christensen got pretty hammy in one scene in which Anakin angrily confronted Obi-Wan before their duel on Mustafar. And McGregor got a little hammy during that scene in which Obi-Wan ranted at a limbless and burning Anakin, after the duel. Even McDiarmid and Jackson engaged in a good deal of ham during the big Palpatine/Windu scene. I was a little disappointed that Christopher Lee’s Count Dooku only appeared in the movie’s first half hour. His replacement – General Grievous one-dimensional and not very interesting as a personality. I was also disappointed that Jar-Jar Binks, along with Owen and Beru Lars were all reduced to cameo appearances with no dialogue in the movie’s last montage. However, my biggest complaint featured Anakin’s early appearance on Mustafar. After killing Nute Gunray and the other Separatist leadership on Mustafar, Anakin remained on the planet; while Palpatine declared himself Emperor, Obi-Wan informed Padmé about Anakin’s new role as a Sith Lord, and both of them headed for Mustafar. Why on earth did Anakin remain on the planet for so long, after killing the Separatists? That did not make sense to me.

Despite these complaints, I cannot deny that “STAR WARS: EPISODE III – REVENGE OF THE SITH” was a more than worthy entry in the STAR WARS. I found it outstanding, despite its flaws. The movie featured a well written, yet dark tale about the downfall of its many characters; outstanding visuals; along with excellent action and dramatic scenes. But most importantly, I also found it ironic that the movie’s dark and operatic tone ended up being more or less copied by many other film franchises in the years to come.

“WONDER WOMAN 1984” (2020) Review

“WONDER WOMAN 1984” (2020) Review

Following both the box office and critical success of the 2017 movie, “WONDER WOMAN”; Warner Brothers Studios and the DC Extended Universe (DCEU) franchise quickly set out to capitalize on its success with a sequel that had been scheduled to be released six months earlier than it did.

Like the 2017 movie, “WONDER WOMAN 1984” featured Gal Gadot in the starring role of Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman and Patty Jenkins as its director. And like its predecessor, the 2020 movie featured a period setting and Chris Pine as Steve Trevor, Diana’s true love. I know what you are thinking. How could Pine portray the same role, considering his fate in the previous film? Let me explain.

Set in Washington D.C. 1984, nearly sixty-six years after the previous film; Diana finds herself dealing with a greedy and desperate businessman, along with a co-worker at the Smithsonian Institution and her own selfish desire when an ancient artifact that grants wishes goes missing. After Wonder Woman secretly foils a robbery at a local mall, the D.C. police asks the Smithsonian to identify stolen antiquities from the attempted robbery. Diana and her colleague, geologist and cryptozoologist Dr. Barbara Ann Minerva notice one item, later identified as the Dreamstone, contains a Latin inscription claiming to grant the holder one wish. Neither woman is aware that failing businessman Maxwell “Max Lord” Lorenzano seeks to use the Dreamstone to save his bankrupt oil company.

Both Diana and Barbara unknowingly use the Dreamstone to fulfill their personal desires. Diana wishes for the resurrection of her dead lover from World War I – Captain Steve Trevor. And Barbara wishes to become like Diana – which leads her to acquire superpowers similar to the latter’s. After discovering the artifact’s new location, Max Lord seduces Barbara and steals the Dreamstone from the Smithsonian. Using the item, he wishes to become the artifact itself and gains its wish-granting powers. Diana, Steve and Barbara discover that the Dreamstone had been created by Dolos/Mendacius, the god of mischief aka Duke of Deception. The Dreamstone not only grants a wish, it also exacts a toll on the user until the wish is renounced or the artifact is destroyed. Following Steve’s return, Diana slowly begins losing her superpowers. Barbara begins losing her humanity. As for Lord, his wish and new role as the Dreamstone not only makes him a wealthy and powerful businessman, but allows him to create chaos and destruction throughout the world.

When Warner Brothers first released news about “WONDER WOMAN 1984”, I must admit that I had a few misgivings about the film. But my misgivings were rather minor. I found it unnecessary that this film would also be a period production, like its 2017 predecessor, “WONDER WOMAN”. In fact, I suspect that Warner Brothers, the DCEU franchise and director-writer Patty Jenkins had decided to use this period setting to exploit one aspect of the previous film’s success. My misgiving toward the film increased when I learned that Chris Pine would return as Diana’s lover Steve Trevor, since his character had died in the 2017 movie. I wondered how Jenkins and the other two screenwriters – Geoff Johns and Dave Callaham – would find a way to bring back Steve.

In the end; Jenkins, Johns and Callaham brought Steve back using the Dreamstone and Diana’s wish as narrative devices. I found this acceptable . . . to a certain degree. Diana’s use of the Dreamstone also allowed the film to explore her inability to recover from Steve’s death back in 1918 and her willingness to succumb to selfishness in order to keep him around. In fact, the film’s opening sequence foreshadowed Diana’s willingness to embrace selfishness for her own personal desire. The opening scene featured the much younger Diana participating in an athletic event on Themyscira against older Amazons. After falling from her horse, Diana’s desire to win the event leads her to cheat during the final race by using a shortcut after her fall. Although Diana’s use of the Dreamstone had been more of an act of wishful thinking on her part, her stubborn refusal to renounce her wish and give up Steve exposed her unwillingness to do the right thing and learn to face grief all over again.

When I first learned that Jenkins would also serve as a screenwriter for “WONDER WOMAN 1984”, I had feared she would allow reverence for the Diana Prince character prevent the latter from being well-rounded. Fortunately, the director-writer proved me wrong. By writing Diana with a degree of ambiguity, Jenkins allowed Gal Gadot to give a better performance than the one she gave in “WONDER WOMAN”.

But there were other aspects of “WONDER WOMAN 1984” that impressed me. Despite my misgivings about the setting, I have to give kudos to production designer Aline Bonetto for her excellent re-creation of Washington D.C. circa 1984. The movie seemed to permeate with that particular period in history, thanks to Bonetto. The art direction team led by Peter Russell, Anna Lynch-Robinson’s set designs and Matthew Jensen’s cinematography also contributed to the movie’s mid-1980s setting. But I especially wanted to point out Lindsay Hemming’s costume designs that perfectly captured the decade, as shown below:

“WONDER WOMAN 1984” also benefited from the cast’s first-rate performances. There were performances that struck me as solid and competent – including Lilly Aspell, who had returned to portray the younger Diana; Gabriella Wilde as Max Lord’s secretary Raquel; Natasha Rothwell as Diana and Barbara’s Smithsonian co-worker Carol; Oliver Cotton as Simon Stagg; Lucian Perez as Lord’s son Alistair; Stuart Milligan as POTUS; Amr Waked as Emir Said Bin Abydos; Ravi Patel as Babajide; Connie Nielsen as Queen Hippolyta; and especially Robin Wright as Diana’s aunt Antiope.

However, I believe the best performances came from those who portrayed the main four characters. Chris Pine gave a warm performance – much warmer – as the resurrected Steve Trevor, who not only found himself a man out of time, but also growing aware of Diana’s continuing grief over him. Pedro Pascal gave a very energetic, yet complex portrayal of failing businessman Max Lord. I thought the actor managed to skillfully conveyed all aspects of Lord’s personality – his insecurities, capacity for love, desperation, charm, cunning and ruthlessness.

I was very impressed by Kristen Wiig’s performance as Barbara Ann Minerva aka Cheetah. I thought she handled the transformation of the geologist-cryptozoologist who becomes a super villain was more than exceptional. I found it subtle, skillful and very effective. Although I was impressed by Gal Gadot’s portrayal of the naive Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman in 2017’s “WONDER WOMAN”, I felt that she gave a better performance in this film. Yes, Gadot did an excellent job in conveying the more positive aspects of Diana’s character – her warmth and heroic determination. But I feel that the actress gave an exceptional performance in conveying the more negative aspects of Diana’s nature – her willingness to engage in her selfishness and especially her unhealthy and never-ending grief over Steve’s original death. Gadot’s portrayal of this aspect of Diana’s character was especially on full display when Steve tried to convince her to renounce her wish.

“WONDER WOMAN 1984” also featured some pretty decent action sequences. However, I felt there was only one sequence that really impressed me. It featured Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor’s fight against against Lord’s men and Cheetah inside the White House. I thought Jenkins did an outstanding job in directing this sequence.

I wish I could say that “WONDER WOMAN 1984” was a first-rate movie or a sequel that truly lived up to the original film. I wish I could say this, but I cannot. This movie was mess, despite its virtues. As I have constantly stated in the past, I believe the backbone of any film is its story. The narrative for “WONDER WOMAN 1984” had potential, but screenwriters Geoff Johns, Dave Callaham and Patty Jenkins just . . . they pretty much screwed over the film’s potential.

First of all, what was the point in setting this film in the mid-1980s? The 2016 movie, “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE” had established that during the 97 years following Steve Trevor’s death, Diana had more or less isolated herself due to her growing cynicism toward humanity and her grief over the former’s death. I have a theory about this – either Patty Jenkins was offended by the idea of Diana not engaging in any costume vigilante activities during that near century; she and the Warner Brothers Studio suits wanted to cash in on the success of the period setting for “WONDER WOMAN”; or both. Nevertheless, showing Diana as Wonder Woman foiling a mall robbery in 1984 Washington D.C. pretty much undermined the established canon from “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN”. Sloppy writing, folks. Even if it is minor.

Speaking of the mall robbery . . . this scene will probably go down as one of the most cringe worthy I have ever seen in a motion picture. I realize that the robbery had served as the catalyst for the Dreamstone story arc, but . . . oh my God! It was a travesty. The entire scene felt as if Patty Jenkins had pulled out every cliché about the Wonder Woman character and the mid-1980s in general . . . aaaannd ramped it up to the extreme. Another cringe-worthy sequence proved to be watching the world fall into chaos after Max Lord managed to convince a great deal of humanity to make a wish. I never realized that a competent director like Jenkins was capable of going over-the-top.

Another exaggeration I found in “WONDER WOMAN 1984” proved to be Steve Trevor’s reaction to the year 1984. I realize Jenkins and the other two writers wanted a repeat of Diana’s reactions to London 1918 in “WONDER WOMAN” . . . only from Steve’s perspective. But the mistake they made was including Steve’s reactions to escalators and subways. Why? Both innovations had already been in existence before 1918. The escalator had been in existence since the late 19th century – roughly 30 to 40 years before the 2017 movie’s setting. The subway or rapid transit systems had been in existence in Great Britain since 1863. The innovation first made its U.S. appearance in 1897 Boston and sprung up in New York City a few years later. Since both innovations had existed years before 1918, why on earth did this film have Steve reacting to both like some kid who had stumbled across a prize?

I also had a problem with the resolution of the whole Lord/Dreamstone situation. From what I understood, once Lord had renounced his past wishes as the Dreamstone, Barbara Ann aka Cheetah lost her powers. I do not see how this is possible, considering that she had gained a copy of Diana’s powers through her first wish – before Lord became the Dreamstone itself. I saw nothing wrong with Barbara Ann losing her second wish (or Lord’s, since he was the one who actually made the wish) – namely being an apex predator. But she had never renounced her first wish – which means she should have remained as powerful as Diana by the film’s end.

Did anyone notice how often Jenkins had Diana used her Lasso of Truth as a weapon a lot? I did. Yet, there seemed to be no sign of a shield or sword. I had no problem with Diana not using a sword and shield in this movie; but Jenkins, Johns and Callaham practically had her heavily depending upon the lasso as a weapon like the Jedi in “THE CLONE WARS”. It seemed too much. Speaking of weapons, “WONDER WOMAN 1984” also introduced the armor of a legendary Amazon named Asteria. Apparently, Diana had sought out this Amazon in later years, but only found the latter’s golden armor. Diana later wore this armor during her last fight with Barbara Ann aka Cheetah. When the media first released images of this armor, I was not impressed. And my instincts proved to be correct. I do not know how Asteria, whom the mid-credit scene revealed as still being alive in 1984, lost her armor. But the latter proved to be a waste of time – not only for Diana, but also to this viewer. Wearing the armor did nothing for Diana. It was not able to protect her from Barbara Ann’s claws during their fight. In fact, it did not take Barbara Ann very long to damage the suit. What was the point in introducing the armor in the first place?

“WONDER WOMAN 1984” introduced two new abilities for Diana that were part of comic book canon, but not featured in any previous DCEU movies. One of those abilities left me feeling flabbergasted – namely Diana’s ability to fly. That is correct. Wonder Woman flied . . . like Superman. Diana had possessed this ability in the comic books since the 1980s. My only previous experience with Wonder Woman had been the 1970s cartoon, “THE SUPER FRIENDS”, and Lynda Carter as the titular heroine between 1975 and 1979. Wonder Woman’s ability to fly was never seen in “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN”, the 2017 movie or both versions of “JUSTICE LEAGUE”. Why was it important for Jenkins to introduce this ability . . . in this film? During this period in Diana’s life? I do recall Wonder Woman’s invisible plane from the 1970s. But in “WONDER WOMAN 1984”, Diana suddenly remembered that she had inherited her father’s ability to render something or someone invisible. And she used this ability to make the plane she and Steve had stolen to fly to Egypt . . . invisible. Now, I realized that although the invisible plane was part of Wonder Woman lore, I saw this plot twist as unnecessary. One, why introduce this ability when it was not previously shown in other DCEU movies? And two, why steal a plane in the first place? Neither Diana or Steve ever considered that the man whose body Steve occupied had a passport. The whole sequence struck me as dumb.

Since I had brought him up, I might as well focus my attention on the one aspect of “WONDER WOMAN 1984” that I believe sunk this film. Namely, Steve Trevor’s possession of the nameless handsome strange. Why in God’s name did Jenkins, Johns and Callaham allow this to happen? Why did the writers allow Steve’s spirit to take possession of some man without the latter’s consent? Why did they allow Steve to take control of the man’s apartment without his consent? Why did they allow Diana to have sex with this man’s body . . . without his consent? All of this happened without Diana or Steve even considering the issue of consent. And it was disgusting to watch. The entire situation smacked of rape to me. If the genders of the three characters involved had been reversed . . . what am I saying? This situation managed to generate a great deal of criticism anyway . . . and quite rightly. What I did not like was Jenkins’ attempt to brush aside this controversy. If Jenkins, Johns and Callaham wanted Steve back that badly, they could have easily allowed Diana’s wish to manifest Steve’s body again . . . wearing his old World War I uniform. Why did they not consider this? I could have tolerated this film a lot more, despite its flaws, if Jenkins and the other filmmakers had not pulled this disgusting plot point with Steve Trevor and the handsome stranger’s body.

Believe or not, “WONDER WOMAN 1984” had its share virtues – a few pretty good action sequences, costume and production designs that perfectly reflected the mid-1980s and some damn good performances from a cast led by Gal Gadot. Unfortunately, I believe the film’s flaws – especially in regard to the Steve Trevor and handsome stranger characters – really undermined it. I have not been so disappointed in a comic book movie since Marvel’s 2016 film, “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR”. What a damn pity!

My Ranking of the “STAR WARS” Movies

Below is my ranking of the six STAR WARS movies made by George Lucas between 1977 and 2005; and the five films made by Disney Studios between 2015 and 2019:

MY RANKING OF THE “STAR WARS” MOVIES

1a. “Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back” (1980) – Set three years after the events of the first film in the franchise’s Original Trilogy, Rebel Alliance pilot Luke Skywalker studies the ways of the Force under Jedi Master Yoda. Meanwhile, the Galactic Empire under the Sith Lord Darth Vader, relentlessly pursues Luke Skywalker’s friends — Han Solo, Princess Leia, and Chewbacca – in order to use them as bait to lure the young Skywalker. Directed by Irwin Kershner. (TIE)

1b. “Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones” (2002) – Ten years after the events in the first film of the franchise’s Prequel Trilogy, the Galactic Republic finds itself on the brink of civil war, with thousands of planetary systems threatening to secede and join the Confederacy of Independent Systems, led by the former Jedi Master Count Dooku. After Senator Padmé Amidala evades an assassination attempt, Jedi Padawan Anakin Skywalker becomes her protector. Meanwhile his mentor Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi investigates the attempt on Senator Amidala’s life and uncovers a clone army being created to serve the Republic. Directed by George Lucas. (TIE)

2. “Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith” (2005) – Three years after the Prequel Trilogy’s second film, the Jedi set out to end the Clone Wars conflict with the capture of its leader Sith Lord Count Dooku aka Darth Tyrannus and General Grievous. Meanwhile, Senator Padmé Amidala’s revelation of her pregnancy leads to her secret husband Jedi Knight Anakin Skywalker’s fears of her dying in childbirth and a desperate desire to prevent her from experiencing this fate. Directed by George Lucas.

. “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” (2016) – The Rebel Alliance tasks Jyn Erso, the daughter of an Imperial scientist, to find him and learn any information about the Galactic Empire’s new secret weapon, the Death Star. Later, she and a group of Rebels seek to steal the weapon’s plans. Directed by Gareth Edwards.

4. “Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace” (1999) – The Jedi Order tasks Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn and his apprentice Obi-Wan Kenobi with trying to protect Queen Padmé Amidala of Naboo in hopes of securing a peaceful end to an interplanetary trade dispute between her planet and the Trade Federation. Joined by a Force sensitive slave named Anakin Skywalker, they simultaneously contend with the mysterious return of the Sith. Directed by George Lucas.

5. “Solo: A Star Wars Story” (2018) – Set ten years before the Original Trilogy, this movie depicts the early adventures of smugglers Han Solo and Chewbacca, who join a criminal heist of a shipment of valuable coaxium in order to pay a debt. Ron Howard directed.

6. “Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope” (1977) – In the Original Trilogy’s first film, farm boy Luke Skywalker meets Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi. The pair hire Han Solo and Chewbacca to help them free Princess Leia Organa from the Galactic Empire’s clutches and help her deliver the Death Star plans to the Rebel Alliance. George Lucas directed.

7. “Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi” (1983) – After rescuing Han Solo from Tatooine gangster Jabba the Hutt, Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker and his friends set out on a mission to destroy the Galactic Empire’s second Death Star. Meanwhile, Luke deals with the revelation that he is related to Darth Vader. Richard Marquand directed.

8. “Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens” (2015) – In this first film of the Sequel Trilogy, a new threat in the form of the First Order – remnants of the fallen Galactic Empire – rises. A desert scavenger named Rey and an ex-stormtrooper named Finn help the Resistance, formed by Princess Leia Organa, to meet this threat. J.J. Abrams directed.

9. “Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi” (2017) – While Finn tries to help the dwindling Resistance forces flee from the First Order, Rey goes to Jedi Master Luke Skywalker – now a hermit – to help her train in the ways of the Force. Rian Johnson directed.

10. “Star Wars: Episode IX – The Rise of Skywalker” (2019) – The surviving members of the Resistance face the First Order once again. Meanwhile, Rey, Finn and Resistance pilot Poe Dameron search for the former Emperor Palpatine, who has apparently risen again. J.J. Abrams directed.

“THE WAY WEST” (1967) Review

“THE WAY WEST” (1967) Review

Years ago, I had watched a 1952 movie called “THE BIG SKY”. The movie was an adaptation of a novel written by A.B. Guthrie Jr. I eventually learned that Guthrie had used some of the characters featured in “THE BIG SKY” and created a series of novels set between 1830 and the 1880s. One of them was the 1949 Pulitzer Prize winning novel, “The Way West”.

Twenty-eight years after the 1949 novel’s release, Harold Hecht produced an film adaptation of it. Directed by Andrew V. McLaglen, “THE WAY WEST” told the story about an Oregon-bound wagon train being led west by a former U.S. senator. Throughout the journey, the wagon train emigrants endure weather, accidents, encounters with Native Americans and the usual personal dramas that beset a group of people forced to live with one another over a long period of time. Many film critics have dismissed “THE WAY WEST” over the years, comparing it unfavorably to the 1962 movie, “HOW THE WEST WAS WON”. I never understood this comparison. The 1962 film was about the history of one family during most of the 19th century West. Out of the film’s five segments – two had focused on members of the family emigrating to the West. “THE WAY WEST” told the story of the members of one Oregon-bound wagon train in the year 1843.

Before one starts speculating over how a film with a 122 minutes running time could tell the story about all members of a wagon train. It cannot. Guthrie’s novel, along with Ben Maddow and Mitch Lindemann’s screenplay focused on a group of people:

*William Tadock – former U.S. senator and captain of the “Liberty Wagon Train”
*Lije Evans – restless Missouri farmer who decides to move his family to the Oregon Territory at the last moment
*Rebecca Evans – Lije’s pragmatic wife
*Brownie Evans – Lije and Rebecca’s shy son
*Dick Summers – widowed mountain man and guide for the wagon train
*Mr. McBee – Georgia-born farmer hoping to start a peach farm
*Mrs. McBee – wife of Mr. McBee
*Mercy McBee – flirtatious only child of the McBees and the object of Brownie’s desire
*John “Johnnie” Mack – recently married emigrant and object of Mercy’s desire
*Amanda Mack – Johnnie’s sexually frigid bride

There are aspects of “THE WAY WEST” that I found unappealing. One of those aspects proved to be Bronislau Kaper’s score for the film. I found it bombastic, awkward and unmemorable. Enough said. I was also not that impressed by some of the performances found in the film – especially from some of the supporting cast and one of the major leads. And like many other historical or period dramas, “THE WAY WEST” suffered from a few historical inaccuracies. Wagon trains were usually pulled by either oxen or mules. The stock used to convey the “Liberty Wagon Train” from Missouri to Oregon proved to be a hodge podge of horses, mules and oxen. I realize that “THE WAY WEST” is basically a Western about overland travel, but I found the costumes designed by Norma Koch very disappointing. The costumes looked as if they came straight from a warehouse. None of the women wore any layers of petticoats or corsets. And Koch’s costume designs for the McBee family proved to be a real head scratcher. I got the feeling she was trying to convey the family’s background as Georgia dirt farmers barely able to afford the journey to Oregon. Their clothes looked threadbare in compare to their fellow emigrants. And it is a miracle that the McBees did not finish their journey nearly naked. If the McBees were able to afford the journey to Oregon, they could afford to wear better quality clothing than what they wore.

The biggest historical head scratcher occurred midway into the film. During a social gathering between the emigrants and a group of Sioux warriors, one of the emigrants mistook the Sioux leader’s son for a wolf. The emigrant killed the boy and failed to inform the others of the incident. This led the Sioux to later track down the wagon party and demand the killer face justice. Initially, the wagon emigrants refused to comply until they discovered that a very large party of warriors had accompanied the Sioux leader. I am sorry, but I found this scenario improbable. The only times I could recall that many Native Americans gathering at one spot in the history of the American West was at the council for the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie and the Battle of Little Bighorn. And considering that the Cheyenne nation were spread out from present-day southern North Dakota and Wyoming to northern Colorado, I found this encounter between the Tadlock wagon party and the Sioux historically improbable.

Despite its flaws, I actually enjoyed “THE WAY WEST”. Very much. I can see why the original novel won a Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in the first place. First of all, I enjoyed how the movie opened with a montage of westbound emigrants arriving and organizing in Independence to the movie’s The plot struck me as a solid psychological drama about how a group of strangers struggled to tolerate each other, while traveling long distance during a period between four to five months in a wagon train. Knowing myself, I would probably go crazy dealing with strangers who irritated me after more than two weeks. Perhaps less. And having to deal with a ruthless and controlling personality like former U.S. Senator William Tadlock? Good Lord!

In fact, I find it interesting how the megalomaniacal Tadlock seemed to have an impact on the other major subplots in this film, one way or the other. He and the easy-going farmer Lije Evans managed to consistently clash with each other from the beginning. Evans resents his controlling style of leadership, but seemed reluctant to replace him. The former senator’s attraction toward Lije’s wife Rebecca did not help matters. In onescene, Tadlock had offered himself as a potential wife to Rebecca . . . in case Lije failed to survive the journey to Oregon. I could not decide whether to be surprised or disgusted by his suggestion. Tadlock even had an impact on the Brownie Evans-Mercy McBee romantic quagmire with John and Amanda Mack.

And yet . . . despite being such a megalomaniacal personality, I must admit that I found some of Tadlock’s decisions. For example, Lije Evans and the other wagon party members wanted to fight the Sioux, instead of giving in to the latter’s demand for the Sioux boy’s killer. I suspect that a combination of racism and braggadocio led the emigrants believe it would be better to fight the Sioux than submit one of their own to justice. Tadlock, to his credit, realized it would be wiser to give in to the Sioux’s demand. I also found myself agreeing with his order that the emigrants ditch all non-essential possession in order to lighten the load for the stock that pulled their wagons. Unfortunately, Tadlock’s anger at Evans’ stubborn refusal to give up Mrs. Evans’ floor clock spun out of control and cost him his position as the wagon train’s leader. I would expand more about the human drama found in “THE WAY WEST”. But to do so would give away the plot.

Although I had a problem with the film’s music and costume designs, I certainly had none with its cinematography. “THE WAY WEST” was shot on location in Arizona and Oregon. And I found William H. Clothier’s cinematography outstanding, thanks to its sharp and colorful photography shown in the images below:

Another aspect of “THE WAY WEST” that impressed me, proved to be the sequence for its opening credits. This sequence was basically a montage of emigrants arriving in Independence, Missouri or forming wagon trains for the westbound journey. Despite Bronislau Kaper’s forgettable score and equally forgettable theme song, I thought the sequence permeated with atmosphere and strong sense of how Independence must have been during that period in history. The sequence’s strong atmosphere benefited from Andrew V. McLeglen’s skillful direction, Otho Lovering’s editing and Robert Priestley’s set direction.

For me, the performances in “THE WAY WEST” proved to be a mixed affair. A good number of the supporting performers gave some hammy performances. Most of them portrayed minor characters. But the two hammy performances that seemed to stand out belonged to Richard Widmark as Lije Evans and Jack Elam as Preacher Weatherby. Widmark seemed as if he was trying too hard to convey Evans’ good-natured personality . . . to the point that his performance seemed forced. I did not enjoy admitting that. Mind you, Widmark had some good moments, especially in those scenes in which Lije clashed with Tadlock. Otherwise . . . I found him just a tad over-the-top for my tastes. Elam portrayed a minister named Preacher Weatherby, who had sneaked aboard one of the wagons in an effort to join the wagon train. Not only did I find his portrayal of the “hell and brimstone” minister over-the-top, but also one-dimensional. On the other hand, there was one performance that seemed to go in the complete opposite direction. I am referring to Michael Witney, who portrayed John “Johnnie” Mack, one half of the newlywed couple and the object of Mercy McBee’s desire. Witney may have avoided giving a hammy performance, but he ended up being rather wooden – at least in my eyes. Watching his performance, I found myself wondering how his character managed to generate so much emotion from both Mercy McBee and his wife, Amanda.

Thankfully, “THE WAY WEST” had its share of good and excellent performances. Ironically, two of them came from Harry Carey Jr. and Connie Sawyer. Yes, I will admit they gave hammy performances as Mr. and Mrs. McBee. But their hamminess struck me as so entertaining that I could not dismiss the performances. It seemed as if both really enjoyed themselves. “THE WAY WEST” also featured solid performances from the likes of Patric Knowles, Stubby Kaye, Katherine Justice and Eve McVeagh.

But there were also exceptional performances in “THE WAY WEST”. One came from the likes of Lola Albright, who gave a competent performances as Rebecca Evans, a woman torn between her love for Lije. I thought Michael McGreevey, who gave a very skillful performance as the Evans’ shy and lovesick son, Brownie. Sally Field revealed signs of future stardom with a great performance as the ebullient, sexual and painfully naive Mercy McBee. Robert Mitchum seemed to be the film’s backbone, thanks to his portrayal of the wagon train’s warm, yet pragmatic scout Dick Summers. I especially enjoyed his scenes with McGreevey. But if I had to give the award for the film’s best performance, it would go to Kirk Douglas for his superb portrayal of the very complex and magnetic former Senator William Tadlock. Douglas’ performance struck me as so exceptionally complex that there were times I found myself wondering whether or not I should like him or not.

What else can I say about “THE WAY WEST”? Well, the movie had its flaws. I cannot deny it. But I feel that its virtues definitely outweighed its flaws. And I think that it does not deserve the lukewarm opinions it has received over the years. Thanks to screenwriters Ben Maddow and Mitch Lindemann; a first-rate cast led by Kirk Douglas, Richard Widmark and Robert Mitchum; and excellent direction from Andrew V. McLaglen; I believe “THE WAY WEST” is a lot better than it is reputed to be.

“Irene Adler in Modern SHERLOCK HOLMES Adaptations”

“IRENE ADLER IN MODERN SHERLOCK HOLMES ADAPTATIONS”

What is it about the Irene Adler character from the 1891 Sherlock Holmes novella, “A Scandal in Bohemia” that bothers a lot of filmmakers and television producers? What is it about her that drives them to enact nearly drastic changes upon the character, when either adapting Sherlock Holmes novels or creating new movie and television productions, based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s characters?

In Doyle’s original story, Irene was an American Opera singer who became involved in the King of Bohemia and ended up outwitting him and Sherlock Holmes over a photograph. The only movie or television adaptation I can think of that portrayed Irene any justice was the 1984 adaptation with Gayle Hunnicutt portraying the character in the BBC series, “THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES”.

But the other versions of the Irene Adler characters I have seen? Well:

*“SHERLOCK HOLMES IN NEW YORK” (1976) – Irene is an American actress who helps Sherlock Holmes solve a bank robbery planned by Professor James Moriarty in New York City. She becomes a “damsel-in-distress” when Moriarty kidnaps her son in order to prevent Holmes from solving the case.

*“SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE LEADING LADY” (1991) – Again, Irene is portrayed an American actress. In this television movie, she is performing at a theater in 1910 Vienna, when she has a reunion with Holmes and his companion, Dr. John Watson. She is merely portrayed as a former lover in this television movie.

*“SHERLOCK HOLMES” (2009)/”SHERLOCK HOLMES: GAME OF SHADOWS” (2011) – In the two films directed by Guy Ritchie, Irene is an American professional thief and femme fatale, who is occasionally hired by Professor Moriarty to assist in his schemes. Although she managed to outwit Holmes inside her London hotel room in the first film, Holmes eventually outwits her and she is transformed into a damsel in distress, despite her fighting abilities. Moriarty later kills her in the second film, after Holmes nearly interfered in the murder of another employee.

*“SHERLOCK” – “A Scandal in Belgravia” (2012) – Irene is a British dominatrix sex worker in this BBC series, who has incriminating information wanted by the British government. This was probably the most problematic portrayal of the character. In the end, she is not only outwitted by Holmes, but either loses or nearly loses her life to those who had hired her to acquire the information.

*“ELEMENTARY” (2013-15) – Irene is an American former lover of Holmes, who had apparently been killed by a serial killer. She is eventually revealed to be Jaime Moriarty, one of Holmes’ main nemesis.

Now, I realize that producers and directors like Guy Ritchie, Stephen Moffat, Mark Gatiss and Robert Doherty may have wanted to put some kind of twist on the Irene Adler character. But when they do, it is always to the character’s detriment. During the late 20th century, the filmmakers and television producers before them tend to thrust the role of main love interest upon her. After the turn of the 21st century, filmmakers like Ritchie and Moffat tend reduced Irene Adler to a damsel-in-distress, or transformed into a sex worker or criminal mastermind that required imprisonment.

But Irene Adler has never been the brilliant woman, who “rightly” had the last word on Sherlock Holmes since 1984. As far as today’s modern-day filmmakers and television producers are concerned, Holmes had to be the one who either saved or outwitted Irene. Or both. Is there something about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original creation that these filmmakers and producers find so threatening from a gender point of view? Apparently Mr. Conan Doyle did not.

“WHISPERING SMITH” (1948) Review

“WHISPERING SMITH” (1948) Review

For years, I had assumed that Alan Ladd starred in only three Westerns – one of them being the acclaimed 1953 movie, “SHANE”. Yet, while perusing his filmography, I discovered that he had either starred or co-starred in a good number of “oaters”. One of them was the 1948 film, “WHISPERING SMITH”.

Based upon Frank H. Spearman’s 1906 novel, “WHISPERING SMITH” told the story of a railroad detective named Luke “Whispering” Smith who is assigned to investigate a series of train robberies in late 19th century Wyoming Territory. However, the case becomes personal for Luke when his oldest friend, a local rancher and railroad employee named Murray Sinclair becomes involved with the gang responsible for the robberies.

Superficially, “WHISPERING SMITH” seemed like the typical Western made by Hollywood studios during the studio era. If I have to be honest with myself, Westerns with any real depth seemed rare to me during the so-called “Golden Age of Hollywood” and now. I seriously doubt that any movie critic would regard “WHISPERING SMITH” as something unique. The movie possessed traits one could easily find in mediocre Westerns and a few really good ones:

*Outlaw gang robbing either locals or businesses that dominate the neighborhood

*Corrupt local businessman or rancher leading the outlaws

*Rancher or businessman’s main henchman, who happens to be a proficient killer

*Lawman assigned to hunt down outlaws

*Posse chases outlaw around neighborhood/county

Yes, “WHISPERING SMITH” possessed these traits. It also possessed a first-rate dramatic narrative that elevated the movie from the usual Western tropes – namely the love triangle between Luke Smith, his best friend Murray Sinclair and Murray’s wife Miriam Sinclair. This triangle was set five years in the past when Miriam, frustrated by Luke’s reluctance to propose marriage to her, married Murray. The latter never realized that Luke and Miriam still harbored lingering romantic feelings toward each other . . . until the film’s midway point.

Between his resentment toward Luke and Miriam, and being fired by his railroad boss George St. Cloud – whom he disliked – Murray made a choice that proved to be disastrous for his marriage and his friendship with Luke. The developing estrangement between Luke and Murray also proved to be difficult for the former as well. This was especially apparent in the film’s second half of the film. Due to his close friendship with Murray; Luke not only struggled and failed to save the other man’s job, but also convince the latter to give up his new alliance with the main villain, rancher Barney Rebstock.

“WHISPERING SMITH” not only benefited from this complex narrative regarding the Luke-Miriam-Murray relationship, but also the fine performances from its cast. Once again, Alan Ladd proved he was a better actor than many believed he was in his performance of the leading character, Luke Smith. What made Ladd’s performance first-rate his ability to not only convey Luke’s contrasting personality traits – soft-spoken, yet friendly demeanor and an intelligent ruthlessness – but also his varying array of emotions with a fluidity that still impress me to this day. Another superb performance came from Robert Preston, who portrayed Luke’s best friend Murray Sinclair. Superficially, Murray came off as a one-note personality. But thanks to Preston’s performance, Murray proved to a complicated character that transformed from a genial, yet sometimes pushy man to an embittered one, who had allowed his bullheadedness and temper to lead him to a bad choice. Brenda Marshall’s portrayal of Miriam Sinclair also struck me as equally impressive. Her Miriam proved to be an emotional and complicated woman, who struggled to repress her lingering feelings for Luke and determined to save Murray and her marriage. Marshall conveyed these aspects of Miriam’s emotional state in two excellent scenes. One of them featured her never ending frustration and resentment toward Luke’s failure to propose marriage all those years ago. And other featured a quarrel between Miriam and Murray in which she finally convinced him to sell their ranch and move away from the neighborhood . . . and Barney Rebstock’s orbit.

There were other performances I enjoyed. One of them came from William Demarest, who gave an emotional, yet satisfying portrayal of Bill Dansing, a railroad employee who had been friends of Luke and Murray for years and served as their father figure. Donald Crisp gave an amusing and entertaining performance as Barney Rebstock, the rancher who hid his criminal and ruthless behavior behind a genial mask. Another came from John Eldredge, whose portrayal of George McCloud, the railroad official who clashed with Murray, struck me as subtle and intelligent. I also enjoyed the solid performances from the likes of Fay Holden, Murray Vye, Ward Wood and Will Wright.

I have to say a word about Ray Rennahan’s cinematography. What can I say? I thought it was beautiful looking. Rennahan, who had won an Academy Award for his work in 1939’s “GONE WITH THE WIND”, also shot “WHISPERING SMITH” in Technicolor. I have seen other films shot in Technicolor that struck me as rather garish. I cannot say the same about “WHISPERING SMITH”. I found the photography sharp and colorful, without being garish, as shown in the image below:

Although I found myself impressed by the narrative regarding Luke’s relationship with the Sinclairs, I cannot disregard some of the film’s action sequences. There were two that really impressed me. One proved to the final sequence that featured the posse chasing Murray, Rebstock and the latter’s gang around the countryside following a train robbery. Sure, I thought it was an unoriginal trope to use in a Western. But I thought it was exciting and well shot by director Leslie Fenton. However, I was more impressed by Fenton’s work in the sequence that featured Luke’s encounter with the Barton boys – members of Rebstock’s gang – at a rail junction in the rain. It featured good action, good acting and great editing by Archie Marshek.

As much as I enjoyed “WHISPERING SMITH”, there are some aspects of it that I found unappealing. One of them proved to be actor Frank Faylen’s portrayal of henchman Whitey DuSang. I realize that Faylen was a first-rate actor. I have seen him in other productions. But . . . I found his portrayal of DuSang rather one-dimensional. Faylen spent most of the film hovering around Donald Crisp with his arms folded and staring at people with squinting eyes. If this was his way of looking intimidating, I did not buy it. I do know whether to blame Faylen, the director Fenton, screenwriters Frank Butler and Karl Kamb or Frank Spearman’s portrayal of the character in his novel. Another major problem I had with “WHISPERING SMITH” proved to be Mary Kay Dodson’s costume designs for the female characters. Exactly what was this film’s setting? Some of Dodson’s costumes seemed to indicate the 1880s. And some of her costumes – especially for Brenda Marshall – seemed to indicate the 1890s. Nor did it help that the women’s hairstyles seemed to reflect the late 1940s.

Despite my quibbles with Frank Faylen and Mary Kay Dodson’s costume designs, I enjoyed “WHISPERING SMITH” very much. Not only does it happen to be one of my favorite films starring Alan Ladd, I actually like it more than his more famous film, “SHANE”. I am certain that many would find this sacrilegious. However, thanks to Leslie Fenton’s direction, a screenplay that conveyed a complex love triangle and excellent performances from a cast led by Ladd, Robert Preston and Brenda Marshall; I cannot help how I feel.

“EMMA” (2020) Review

“EMMA” (2020) Review

Between 2009 and 2020, Hollywood and the British film/television industries had created a handful of productions that either spoofed or were inspired by Jane Austen’s novels. Actually, I can only recall one movie that was more or less a straightforward adaptation – 2016’s “LOVE & FRIENDSHIP”, an adaptation of Austen’s novella, “Lady Susan”. So imagine my surprise when I learned a new and straightforward adaptation of an Austen novel hit the movie theaters back in February 2020.

I had been even more thrilled that this new movie turned out to be a straightforward adaptation of Austen’s 1815 novel, “Emma” . . . which happened to be my favorite written by her. This 2020 adaptation, helmed by Autumn de Wilde and written by Eleanor Catton, starred Anya Taylor-Joy in the title role. I am certain that many Austen fans are familiar with the 1815 novel’s narrative. “EMMA” is the story of a spoiled and over privileged young Englishwoman named Emma Woodhouse, who resides at her wealthy father’s country estate near the town of Highbury. Emma is not only spoiled and over privileged, but overestimates her own matchmaking abilities and is blind to the dangers of meddling in other people’s lives.

Ever since its release last year, film critics and moviegoers had been praising “EMMA” to the skies. In fact, the movie was so high on the critical list that I was surprised it failed to end up receiving major film award nominations during the 2020/2021 award season. A great deal of this praise was focused on the performances of Anya Taylor-Joy, Johnny Flynn for his portrayal of George Knightley, Bill Nighy’s portrayal of Mr. Woodhouse; and Autumn de Wilde’s direction. Does the movie deserve such high praise? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I certainly cannot deny that “EMMA” is a beautiful looking film. I found Christopher Blauvelt’s photography to be very sharp and colorful. In fact, the film’s color palette almost seemed similar to the color schemes found in Alexandra Byrne’s costume designs. Overall, the visual style for “EMMA” seemed to radiate strong and bright colors with a dash of pastels. Very stylized. But as much as I found all of this eye catching, I also found myself a little put off by this stylized artistry – especially for a movie in a period rural setting.

Speaking of artistry, there had been a great deal of praise for Byrne’s costumes. And I can see why. Granted, I am not fond of some of the pastel color schemes. I cannot deny I found her creations – especially those for the movie’s women characters – were eye catching, as shown below:

I had a few complaints regarding the film’s costumes and hairstyles. The men’s trousers struck me as a little too baggy for the 1810s. I get it. Actors like Bill Nighy found historical trousers a bit tight. But I feel the trousers featured in “EMMA” struck me as a bit too comfortable looking from a visual viewpoint. And then there was the hairstyle used by Anya Taylor-Joy in the film. For some reason, I found her side curls a bit too long and rather frizzy looking. Instead of the mid-1810s, her hairstyle struck me as an example of hairstyles worn by women during the early-to-mid 1840s.

Someone had claimed that “EMMA” was a very faithful adaptation of Austen’s novel. Was it? Frankly, I thought it was no more or less faithful than any of the costumed versions. De Wilde and screenwriter Eleanor Catton followed the major beats of Austen’s novel, except for one scene – namely the Crown Inn ball. I will discuss that later. The movie also did an excellent job in capturing the comic nature of Austen’s novel. This was apparent in nearly every scene featuring Bill Nighy as Mr. Woodhouse. I also enjoyed those scenes featuring the introduction of Augusta Elton, Emma’s reactions to Jane Fairfax and her attempts to play matchmaker for Harriet Smith and Mr. Elton. But the movie also featured some good dramatic moments, thanks to De Wilde’s direction and the film’s cast. I am speaking of the scenes that featured Mr. Knightley’s scolding of Emma for her rudeness towards the impoverished Miss Bates at the Box Hill picnic; Mr. Knightley’s marriage proposal and the revelation of Harriet’s engagement to tenant farmer Robert Martin.

“EMMA” had received a great deal of acclaim from film critics, moviegoers and Jane Austen fans. Many had claimed it as the best adaptation of the 1815 novel. Do I feel the same? No. No, I do not. In fact, out of the five film and television adaptations I have seen, I would probably rank it at number four. Perhaps I had very high expectations of this movie. It is an adaptation of my favorite Austen novel. And it is the first straightforward Austen adaptation since the 2009 television miniseries of same novel. Perhaps this movie is better than I had original assume. Then again, looking back on some of the film’s aspects – I think not.

A good deal of my problems with “EMMA” stemmed from the portrayal of the main character, Emma Woodhouse. How can I say this? Thanks to Catton’s screenplay and De Wilde’s direction, Emma came off as more brittle and chilly than any other version I have ever seen. Granted, Emma Woodhouse was a snob. This was apparently in her strong sense of class status, which manifested in her erroneous belief that Harriet Smith was the illegitimate daughter of an aristocrat or gentry landowner, instead of someone from a lower class. Emma’s snobbery was also reflected in her contempt towards the impoverished Miss Bates, despite the latter being a “gentlewoman” and a member of the landed gentry. Emma’s snobbery, a product of her upbringing, also manifested in her own ego and belief that she is always right. Yes, Emma possessed negative traits. But she also had her share of positive ones. She possessed a warm heart, compassion for the poor (at least those not from her class), intelligence, and an ability to face her faults. This cinematic portrayal of Emma Woodhouse as a brittle and slightly chilly bitch struck me as a little off putting and extreme.

Another example of the exaggeration in this production was Mr. Knightley’s reaction to his dance with Emma at the Crown Inn ball. Many have not only praised the sensuality of the pair’s dance, but also Mr. Knightly’s reaction upon returning home to his estate, Donwell Abbey. What happened? George Knightley seemed to be in some kind of emotional fit, while he stripped off some of his clothes and began writhing on the floor. What in the fuck was that about? That scene struck me as so ridiculous. Other actors who have portrayed Knightley have managed to portray the character’s awareness of his love for Emma without behaving like a teenager in heat.

Speaking of heat, who can forget Harriet Smith’s orgasmic reaction to the idea of being Mrs. Elton? Many critics and Austen fans thrilled over the sight of a female character in a Jane Austen production having an orgasm. I will not castigate De Wilde for this directorial choice. I am merely wondering why she had included this scene in the first place. If Harriet was going to have an orgasm, why not have her bring up the subject to a possibly flabbergasted Emma? Why include this moment without any real follow through? Having an orgasm must have been something of a novelty for a young woman like Harriet, who was inexperienced with sexual thoughts or feelings.

And then there was Emma and Mr. Knightley’s dance at the Crown Inn ball. The latter sequence is usually one of my favorites in any adaptation of “EMMA”. The one exception proved to be the 1972 miniseries, which ended the sequence after Emma had suggested they dance. I almost enjoyed the sequence in this film . . . except it featured Emma obviously feeling attracted to Mr. Knightley during this dance. And I thought this was a big mistake. Why? Because Emma was never that consciously aware of her attraction to Mr. Knightley, until Harriet had confessed her crush on the landowner. And that happened near the end of the story. In other words, by showing Emma’s obvious feelings for Knightley during the ball, Autumn De Wilde rushed their story . . . and was forced to retract in the scene that featured Harriet’s confession. I feel this was another poor decision on the filmmaker’s part.

If I have to be honest, I think De Wilde, along with screenwriter Eleanor Catton, made a number of poor decisions regarding the film’s narrative. I have already pointed out three of those decisions in the previous paragraphs. But there were more. De Wilde and Catton changed the dynamics between Mr. Woodhouse and his older daughter and son-in-law, Isabella and John Knightley. In the novel and previous adaptations, the younger Mr. Knightley had always seemed more annoyed and at times, cankerous toward Mr. Woodhouse’s hypochondria. In this version, Isabella’s hypochondria is portrayed as more irritating. And instead of reacting to his wife’s complaints, John suppressed his reactions and ended up being portrayed as a henpecked husband. For some reason, De Wilde and Catton thought it was necessary to take the bite out of John Knightley, making him a weaker character. Why? I have not the foggiest idea, but I did miss the character’s biting wit.

In my review of the 1996 television version of “Emma”, I had complained how screenwriter Andrew Davies and director Diarmuid Lawrence had minimized part of Harriet’s character arc and focused just a bit too much on Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax. In the 1996 movie version, the opposite happened. Writer-director Douglas McGrath had focused more on Harriet’s arc than the Frank/Jane arc. Well De Wilde and Catton ended up repeating McGrath’s mistake by focusing too much on Harriet, at the expense of Frank and Jane. Worse, Frank and Jane’s arc seemed focused on even less than in the 1996 McGrath film. The couple barely seemed to exist. And a result of this is that Frank’s father, Colonel Weston, barely seemed to exist. Mrs. Weston fared better due to her being Emma’s former governess. But I was really shocked at how little De Wilde and Catton focused on Mr. Elton and his overbearing bride, Augusta Elton. The movie did focus a good deal on Mr. Elton in those scenes featuring Emma’s attempts to match him with Harriet. But following his marriage, his character – along with Mrs. Elton’s – seemed to slowly recede into the background following their tea at Hartfield with the Woodhouses. By allowing very little focus on these characters, De Wilde and Catton had left out so many good moments in their effort to streamline Austen’s story for theatrical film. Even more so than the two versions from 1996.

Because of this streamlining, a good deal of the cast had very little opportunity to develop their characters on screen. Oliver Chris and Chloe Pirrie gave solid comic performances in their portrayal of John and Isabella Knightley, despite my irritation at the changing dynamics of their relationship. Rupert Graves was pretty much wasted as the over-friendly Colonel Weston. Miranda Hart gave a funny performance as the impoverished spinster Miss Bates. Unfortunately, I was distracted by her less-than-impoverished wardrobe in several scenes. If you had asked for my opinion of Amber Anderson’s portrayal of Jane Fairfax, I would not have been able to give it to you. I have no memory of her performance. She made no impact on the movie or its narrative, other than coming off as uncharacteristically supercilious. Tanya Reynolds struck me as a rather funny Mrs. Elton . . . at least in the scene featuring the Eltons’ tea with the Woodhouses at Hartfield. Otherwise, I have no real memory of her other scenes in the movie. Callum Turner has always struck me as a memorable performer. And I have to admit that his portrayal of Frank Churchill certainly made an impression on me. But the impression was not always . . . positive. One, he did not have enough scenes in this movie and his character arc struck me as rather rushed. And two, I thought his Frank Churchill was a bit too smarmy for my tastes.

Thankfully, “EMMA” did feature some memorable supporting performances. Gemma Whelen gave a lovely and warm performance as Emma’s former governess and close friend, Mrs. Weston. Josh O’Connor gave an excellent performance as the social-climbing vicar, Mr. Elton. I must say that I found his comic timing impeccable and thought he gave one of the best performances in the movie. However, I thought there were times when his Mr. Elton came off as a sexual predator. I get it . . . Mr. Elton was basically a fortune hunter. But I thought O’Connor went too far in the scene that featured Emma’s rejection of his marriage proposal. For a moment, I thought he was going to sexually assault her. That was a bit too much. Mia Goth’s portrayal of the clueless Harriet Smith struck me as spot-on and very skillful. Granted, I did not care for the “Harriet has an orgasm” moment, but I cannot deny that Goth’s acting was excellent in the scene. Bill Nighy gave a skillfully comic portrayal as the hypochondriac Mr. Woodhouse. Yes, there were moments when his usual tics (found in many of his performances) threatened to overwhelm his performance in this film. But I think he managed to more or less keep it together.

One performance that had acquired a great deal of acclaim came from Johnny Flynn, who portrayed Mr. Knightley. In fact, many are regarding him as the best Mr. Knightley ever seen in the movies or on television. I believe Flynn is a pretty competent actor who did an excellent job of conveying his character’s decency, maturity and burgeoning feelings for Emma. I was especially impressed by his performance in the Box Hill sequence in which Mr. Knightley chastised Emma for her rude comments at Miss Bates. But I do not regard him as the best screen Mr. Knightley I have seen. If I must be honest, I do not regard his interpretation of the character as even among the best. My problem with Flynn is that his Knightley struck me as a bit of a dull stick. And Knightley has always seemed like a man with a dry sense of humor, which is why I have always regarded him as one of my favorite Austen heroes. For me, Flynn’s Knightley simply came across as humorless to me. Perhaps “humorless” was the wrong word. There were scenes of Flynn’s Mr. Knightley reacting to the comedic actions of other characters and uttering the occasional witty phrase or two. But there was something about Flynn’s demeanor that made it seem he was trying too hard. I guess no amount of ass display, singing, laughing or writhing on the floor like a lovesick adolescent could make him more interesting to me.

Then we have the film’s leading lady, Anya Taylor-Joy. Unlike Flynn, the actress was given the opportunity to display her skills as a comic actress. And she more than lived up to the task. Honestly, I thought Taylor-Joy displayed excellent comic timing. Yet . . . I could never regard her as one of my favorite screen versions of Emma Woodhouse. She was too much of a bitch. Let me re-phrase that. I thought Taylor-Joy overdid it in her portrayal of Emma’s bitchiness and snobbery. To the point that her performance struck me as very brittle. Yes, Emma Woodhouse was a snob. But she could also be a warm and friendly young woman, capable of improving her character. I saw none of this in Taylor-Joy’s performance. If Catton’s screenplay demanded that Emma became aware of her flaws, the actress’ conveyance of those moments did not strike as a natural progression. Otherwise, she made a satisfying Emma Woodhouse. I also have one more criticism to add – Taylor-Joy did not have great screen chemistry with her leading man, Johnny Flynn. Their on-screen chemistry struck me as pedestrian at best, if I must be honest.

One would think that I disliked “EMMA”. Honestly, I did not. The movie managed to stick with Austen’s narrative. And although it did not change Austen’s story, it did feature some changes in some of the characteristics and character dynamics, thanks to director Autumn De Wilde and screenwriter Eleanor Catton. And some of these changes did not serve the movie well, thanks to De Wilde’s occasional bouts of ham-fisted direction. However, I still managed to enjoy the movie and the performances from a cast led by newcomer Anya Taylor-Joy. And if it had not been for the current health crisis that has struck the world, I probably would have seen it again in theaters.

“LITTLE WOMEN” (2019) Review

“LITTLE WOMEN” (2019) Review

Ever since its release in movie theaters back in December 2019, many moviegoers have been in rapture over “LITTLE WOMEN”, filmmaker Greta Gerwig’s adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s 1868 novel. The movie did acquire several acclaims, including Oscar nominations for two of the film’s actresses, Best Adapted Screenplay and an actual Oscar for costume design. I never got the chance to see it in theaters. I finally managed to see it on the HULU streaming service.

Anyone familiar with Alcott’s novel knows that it conveyed the tale of four sisters from a Massachusetts family and their development from adolescence and childhood to adulthood during the 1860s. The first half of Alcott’s tale covered the March sisters’ experiences during the U.S. Civil War. In fact, Alcott had based the March family on herself and her three sisters. Unlike previous adaptations, Gerwig incorporated a nonlinear timeline for this version of “LITTLE WOMEN”.

There were aspects of “LITTLE WOMEN” I truly admired. I did enjoy most of the performances. Or some of them. I thought Saoirse Ronan gave an excellent performance as the movie’s leading character Josephine “Jo” March. I thought she did a pretty good job of recapturing Jo’s extroverted personality and artistic ambitions. I do wish that Gerwig had allowed Jo to convey some of the less pleasant sides to her personality. Do I believe she deserved her Oscar nomination? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Although I thought she gave an excellent performance, I do not know if I would have considered her for an acting nomination.

But I was more than impressed by Eliza Scanlen, who portrayed third sister Elizabeth “Beth” March. Although her story more or less played out in a series of vignettes that switched back and forth between the period in which she first caught the scarlet fever and her death a few years later; Scanlen did a superb job in recapturing the pathos and barely submerged emotions of Beth’s fate. It seemed a pity that she had failed to acquire any acting nominations. One last performance that really impressed me came from Meryl Streep. I have always regarded the temperamental Aunt March as a difficult role for any actress. And although I do not regard Streep’s interpretation of the aging matriarch as the best I have seen, I must admit that for me, she gave one of the best performances in the film. The movie also featured solid performances from the likes of Emma Watson, Laura Dern, Chris Cooper, Tracy Letts, James Norton, Louis Garrel, Bob Odenkirk and Florence Pugh, who also received an Oscar nomination for her performance as the youngest March sister, Amy. About the latter . . . I really admired her portrayal of the older Amy March. But I found her performance as the younger Amy rather exaggerated. And a part of me cannot help but wonder why she had received an Oscar nomination in the first place.

Jacqueline Durran won the film’s only Academy Award – namely for Best Costume Design. Did she deserve it? I honestly do not believe she did. I did enjoy some of her designs, especially for the older Amy March, as shown below:

I found the costumes worn by Pugh, Streep and many extras in the Paris sequences very attractive and an elegant expression of fashion from the late 1860s. Otherwise, I found Durran’s costumes for this film rather questionable. I realize both she and Gerwig were attempting to portray the March family as some kind of 19th century version of “hippies”. But even non-traditional types like the Marches would not wear their clothing in such a slap-dash manner with petticoat hems hanging below the skirts, along with bloomers showing, cuts and styles in clothing that almost seemed anachronistic, and wearing no corsets. The latter would be the equivalent of not wearing bras underneath one’s clothing in the 20th and 21st centuries. Someone had pointed out that many of today’s costume designers try to put a “modern twist” to their work in period dramas in order to appeal to modern moviegoers and television viewers. I really wish they would not. The attempt tends to come off as lazy costuming in my eyes. And this tactic usually draws a good deal of criticism from fans of period dramas. So . . . how on earth did Durran win an Oscar for her work in the first place?

I understand that “LITTLE WOMEN” was filmed in various locations around Massachusetts, including Boston and Cambridge. A part of me felt a sense of satisfaction by this news, considering the story’s setting of Concord, Massachusetts. I was surprised to learn that even the Paris sequences were filmed in Ipswich, Massachusetts. However, I must admit that I was not particularly blown away by Yorick Le Saux’s cinematography. Then again, I can say that for just about every adaptation of Alcott’s novel I have ever seen.

There were scenes from “LITTLE WOMEN” that I found memorable. Those include Jo March’s initial meeting with her publisher Mr. Dashwood; Amy March’s conflict with Theodore “Laurie” Laurence over his behavior in Paris; Jo’s rejection of Laurie’s marriage proposal, and especially the montage featuring Beth March’s bout with scarlet fever and its consequences. However . . . I had some problems with Gerwig’s screenplay.

As I have stated earlier, “LITTLE WOMEN” is not the first movie I have seen that utilized the non-linear plot technique. I have seen at least two adaptations of Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel, “Jane Eyre”. Two more famous examples of this plot device were the 1995 film, “12 MONKEYS” and two of Christopher Nolan’s movies – 2000’s “MEMENTO” and 2017’s “DUNKIRK”. How can I put this? I feel that Greta Gerwig’s use of non-linear writing had failed the film’s narrative. It simply did not work for me. Except for the brilliant montage featuring Beth’s fate, it seemed as if Gerwig’s writing had scattered all over the place without any real semblance of following Alcott’s plot. If I had not been already familiar with Alcott’s story, I would have found “LITTLE WOMEN” totally confusing.

I also feel that because of Gerwig’s use of the non-linear technique, she managed to inflict a little damage on Alcott’s plot. Despite the excellent scene featuring Laurie’s marriage proposal, I felt that Gerwig had robbed the development of his relationship with Jo. I also believe that Gerwig had diminished Jo’s relationship with Professor Bhaer. In the film, Bhaer had expressed harsh criticism of Jo’s earlier writing . . . without explaining his opinion. But he never added that Jo had the potential to write better stories than her usual melodrama crap. Why did Gerwig deleted this aspect of Professor Bhaer’s criticism? In order to make him look bad? To set up the idea of Jo ending the story as a single woman, because that was Alcott’s original intent? Did Gerwig consider the original version of this scene a detriment to feminist empowerment? I am also confused as to why Gerwig allowed the March family to push her into considering Professor Bhaer as a potential mate for Jo? This never happened in the novel. Jo had come to her decision to marry the professor on her own perogative. She did not have to be pushed into this decision. Come to think of it, exactly how did Jo’s fate end in the movie? I am confused. Did she marry Bhaer after rushing to the train station in order to stop him from leaving for California? Or did she remain single? Whatever.

And why on earth did she position Amy and Laurie’s first meeting after the former’s hand had been caned by her school teacher? Gerwig had transformed an incident that had taught Amy a lesson about self-respect and generated the Marches’ righteous anger against a schoolteacher’s abuse to one of comic relief and a cute rom.com meet for Amy and Laurie. What the hell? Someone had once complained that Gerwig may have assumed that everyone was familiar with Alcott’s story when she wrote this screenplay. And I agree with that person. Earlier I had questioned the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ decision to award the Best Costume Design statuette to Jacqueline Durran and nominate Florence Pugh for Best Supporting Actress. But I also have to question the organization’s decision to nominate Gerwig’s writing for Best Adapted Screenplay. I honestly believe she did not deserve it.

There were aspects of “LITTLE WOMEN” that I found admirable. I was certainly impressed by some of the film’s dramatic moments. And there were a handful of performances from the likes of Saoirse Ronan, Eliza Scanlen and Meryl Streep that truly impressed me. But I cannot deny that the other members of the cast gave either first-rate or solid performances. In the end, I did not like the movie.

I believe “LITTLE WOMEN” should have never been nominated for Best Picture. Greta Gerwig’s use of the nonlinear technique did not serve Louisa May Alcott’s plot very well. If I had not been familiar with the novel’s plot, I would have found this movie confusing. Aside from Ronan’s Academy Award nomination for Best Actress, I feel that the other nominations and Best Costume Design win were undeserved. And a part of me feels a sense of relief that Gerwig had never received a nomination for Best Director.

“TAP ROOTS” (1948) Review

“TAP ROOT” (1948) Review

I am sure that many are aware of Mississippi-born Confederate soldier-turned-Unionist Newton Knight and his formation of the “Free State of Jones”, which opposed Confederate forces during the U.S. Civil War. I first heard about Knight and his men while watching Ken Burns’ 1990 documentary, “THE CIVIL WAR”. But I had no idea that knowledge of this little corner of Civil War history went back even further.

Recently, Hollywood released a movie version about Knight and his followers in the 2016 historical drama, “FREE STATE OF JONES”. However . . . some seventy-four years earlier, a novel titled “Tap Roots”, which had been written by James H. Street, hit the bookstores. It told the story of a cotton planter, his family and a newspaper publisher; who had decided to remain neutral during the first year of the Civil War. Unfortunately, their decision to remain neutral led to disastrous consequences for the planter and his family, along with other local men who decided to follow them. Six years later in 1948, Universal Pictures made a movie adaptation of Street’s novel.

In a nutshell . . . “TAP ROOT” begins in the fall of 1860. Northern Mississippi plantation owner Big Sam Dabney and his son Hoab express concern over Abraham Lincoln’s election as the 16th president and the possibility of Southern states seceding from the Union. Both men begin to consider having Levington County in Lebanon Valley, location of the family’s cotton plantation, remain neutral if a civil war breaks out. Meanwhile, Hoab’s older daughter, Morna Dabney, becomes engaged with Army officer, Clay McIvor. Younger sister Aven is jealous, due to also being in love with Clay. As for Morna, local newspaper owner Keith Alexander becomes attracted to her.

Before 1860 ends, Big Sam dies, leaving Hoab in full control of the family’s neutral stance. And poor Morna has a riding accident, leaving her physically disabled and her engagement to Clay in jeopardy. Apparently, the latter is unable to maintain interest in a disabled woman and transforms his sexual interest to Morna’s younger sister, Aven. This gives Keith the opportunity to court Morna and help her recover from Clay’s rejection. However, Mississippi secedes from the Union, driving Hoab, Keith and the Dabney family’s Choctaw friend, Tishomingo, to organize Levington County’s neutral stance and secession from Mississippi.

There are aspects of “TAP ROOTS” that I found admirable. Alexander Golitzen’s production designs for a Northern Mississippi community between 1860 and 1861 struck me as pretty admirable, if not mind blowing. I could say the same about Yvonne Wood’s costume designs. However, there were some signs of 1940s fashion getting in the way, especially in the men’s costumes. The shoulders for Van Heflin’s jackets struck me as so wide that I found myself wondering if he had portrayed a time traveler from the 1940s. On the other hand, I found Winton C. Hooch and Lionel Lindon’s photography of the Southern California and North Carolina locations rather beautiful, thanks to its sharp color. And I thought director George Marshall did an admirable job with the film’s action scenes. I was especially impressed by the final conflict between Levington County’s “rebels” and the local Confederate forces. Between Marshall’s direction, Hooch and Lindon’s photography, and Milton Carruth’s editing, that final action sequence proved to be one of the film’s finer aspects.

If I must be honest, I did not have any problems with the performances featured in “TAP ROOTS”. Well . . . with most of the performances. Van Heflin gave an entertaining, yet commanding performance as the cynical newspaper editor Keith Alexander. Susan Hayward was equally commanding as Southern belle Moana Dabney, who endured her own trials while her own personal life fell apart. I did not care for the character of Clay McIvor, who struck me as something of a jerk; but I cannot deny that Whitfield Connor did a solid job in bringing his character to life. A very young Julie London really held her own as Moana’s younger sister, Aven Dabney, who managed to win Clay’s love from Moana, following the latter’s riding accident. Russell Simpson gave a entertaining performance as Moana’s colorful grandfather, Big Sam Dabney. Ruby Dandridge, mother of Dorothy Dandridge, gave a solid performance as the Dabneys’ housekeeper, Dabby. And I can say the same about Richard Long’s portrayal of Moana’s younger brother, Bruce Dabney; Arthur Shields as Reverend Kirkland; and Sondra Rogers as Shellie Dabney.

Despite the solid performances that permeated “TAP ROOTS”, two of them proved to be problematic for me. First, there was Ward Bond’s portrayal of Hoab Dabney, the Mississippi planter who not only inherit the family’s cotton plantation following his father’s death, but also the latter’s plans for a neutral Mississippi. I might as well say it. I found Bond’s performance to be an exercise in histrionics. I found this surprising since Bond has never struck me as a hammy acting. I wish that director George Marshall had found a way to rein in his acting – especially in one scene in which Hoab came into conflict with Moana over her past relationship with Clay McIvor. Alas, I thought Bond gave his hammiest performance in that one scene. The other problematic performance came from Boris Karloff, who portrayed the Dabney family’s Choctaw friend and retainer, Tishomingo. Mind you, Karloff gave a competent and subtle performance as one of the few sensible characters in this movie. And although many may have been put off by a British actor portraying a Native American, I was surprised to discover that Karloff had possessed both English and East Indian ancestry from both of his parents. I do not know if that gave the actor a pass, considering he still lacked any Native American ancestry. But if I really had a problem with Karloff’s performance is that he had portrayed Tishomingo as if the character was an Englishman. Even if Karloff had been portraying a white American, I still would have found his performance slightly problematic.

And what about the narrative for “TAP ROOTS”? Did I like it? Honestly? No. For me, the 1948 movie had failed to impress me. And this is a pity. I believe the problem stemmed from the movie’s original source, the 1942 novel. Author James H. Street had claimed he was inspired by the life of Newton Knight, when he wrote his novel. However, out of fear that Knight’s life was too controversial – namely his common-law marriage to former slave Rachel Knight – Street changed the nature of Knight’s story. The leading characters of “TAP ROOTS” were portrayed as members of Mississippi’s planter class. They opposed slavery – at least one or two characters had claimed this – but also owned slaves. But aside from the Dabneys’ “faithful” housekeeper Dabby, all other slaves were minor characters who barely spoke. If a movie is going to have its main characters claim to be anti-slavery, why ignore the topic for the rest of the film? Newton Knight’s grandfather was a major slave owner in northern Mississippi during the early 19th century. But Knight and his father had opposed slavery and became yeoman farmers who never owned slaves. Knight had been an Army deserter and managed to successfully opposed the Confederate authority in Jones County between 1863 and 1865. The Daubey family and Keith Alexander had no such success in “TAP ROOTS”. And I never understood this. Why did Street and later, the movie’s writers did not follow Knight’s Civil War experiences? What was the point of creating this story if they were not willing to closely follow Knight’s conflict with the Confederate authorities? Why not allow the Daubey family to be yeoman farmers who opposed slavery? Street and the filmmakers could have still kept out Newton Knight’s relationship with Rachel Knight.

Instead, I found myself watching a movie in which the main protagonists claimed they opposed slavery, yet practiced it and barely touched upon the subject for most of the film. The movie literally dragged its feet between Abraham Lincoln’s election in November 1860 and the outbreak of the Civil War in April 1861. And although I disliked Moana Dabney’s romance with the unworthy Clay McIvor, I found Keith Alexander’s “courtship” of her rather troubling. In Keith’s attempt to get Moana to forget about Clay, he resorted to bouts of manhandling her that seemed to border on sexual assault. For some reason, this reminded me of the Scarlett O’Hara/Rhett Butler relationship from “GONE WITH THE WIND”. And not in a good way. I also had a problem with the film’s portrayal of Lebanon Valley’s citizens. I noticed that the film seemed to portray them as mindless citizens who followed the Dabneys’ anti-Confederate stance without any real explanation. Like the Dabney slaves, Hoab’s followers lacked any real agency. Did author James Street, along with the filmmakers of this movie really lacked the courage to convey a story about how a Southern-born yeoman farmer and others from his class had successfully fought against the Confederacy? Or even exploring his anti-slavery stance? Back in the 1940s?

In the end, this is my real problem with “TAP ROOTS”. James Street and producer Walter Wanger took a historical event from the Civil War and used fiction – a novel and its Hollywood adaptation – to render it toothless. Its main historical figure Newton Knight had been transformed into a borderline hysterical and controlling cotton planter and member of the elite. The story failed to explore what led many of the planter’s combatants to follow him. The story barely touched upon the topic of anti-slavery, while including slaves as minor and background characters. And the movie dumped some tepid attempt at a “GONE WITH THE WIND” clone romance to keep movie goers interested. The movie had some virtues. But in the end, the movie vague adaptation of Newton Knight’s Civil War experiences simply fell flat. I hope and pray I am never inclined to watch this film again.