“THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO” (1975) Review

8692_16_large

 

 

“THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO” (1975) Review

There have been numerous adaptations of Alexandre Dumas père’s 1844 novel, “The Count of Monte Cristo”. I have seen at least three adaptations – two theatrical releases and a television movie. I had just recently viewed the latter, which aired on British television back in 1975, on DVD. 

“THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO” begins in 1815 with the return of merchant sailor Edmond Dantès to his home port of Marseilles in order to marry his Catalan fiancée, Mercédès Herrera. Before dying during this last voyager, Edmond’s captain Leclère charges Dantès to deliver a letter from Elba to an unknown man in Paris. On the eve of Dantès’ wedding to Mercédès, Dantès’ colleague Danglars, who is jealous of Edmond’s promotion to captain, advises Edmond’s friend Fernand Mondego to send an anonymous note accusing Dantès of being a supporter of the recently exiled Napoleon Bonaparte. Fernand is open to the suggestion due to his own jealousy of Edmond’s engagement to Mercédès, whom he also loves. Edmond is arrested and interrogated by the local chief deputy prosecutor Gérard de Villefort. De Villefort is willing to release Edmond when he realizes that the latter is innocent of being a Bonapartist. But when he discovers that Edmond was charged in delivering a letter to his own father, another Bonapartist, de Villefort has Edmond sent to the Château d’If prison without a trial.

During his fourteen year imprisonment, Edmond meets a fellow prisoner named Abbé Faria, who gives the former a former education. When Faria finds himself on the verge of death, he informs Edmond about a treasure located on the Italian island of Monte Cristo. When Faria dies, Edmond takes his place in the burial sack and makes his escape from the Château d’If. After acquiring the Monte Cristo treasure, Edmond sets about seeking revenge against the three men responsible for his imprisonment.

Many literary and movie fans have complimented this adaptation as being “faithful” to Dumas’ tale in compare to many others. I am a little more familiar with the 1845 novel than I was several years ago, when I had reviewed both the 1934 and 2002 adaptations. Which means I am quite aware that this adaptation is no more faithful than the others. But this did not bother me . . . somewhat. I have one or two issues that I will discuss a bit later. But overall, I found this adaptation, which was produced by a British television production company called ITC Entertainment, both satisfying and entertaining. I realize that my last description of the movie seems slightly tepid. Trust me, I do not regard this adaptation as tepid. It truly is quite good. I thought director David Greene and screenwriter Sidney Carroll provided television audiences with a lively and intelligent adaptation of Dumas’ tale.

Both Greene and Carroll did an excellent job of maintaining a steady pace for the film’s narrative. Starting with Edmond’s return to Marseilles before Napoleon’s Hundred Days return to power, to his fourteen year incarceration inside the Château d’If, and his discovery of the Monte Cristo treasure; I can honestly say that this television movie did not rush through the narrative. Well, most of it. This steady pacing seemed especially apparent in Dantes’ elaborate plots to exact revenge against Mondego, Danglars and de Villefort. However . . . there were aspects of Dumas’ narrative that could have stretched out a bit and I will focus on that later. Greene and Carroll also did a solid job in conveying how those fourteen years in prison, along with his desire for revenge had an impact upon his personality. This topic was not explored as much as I wish it had been, but it was featured in the film’s plot.

I do have a few complaints. Like the 1934 movie, this television movie featured the character of Haydée, the daughter of a pasha who had been betrayed and murdered by Ferdinand Mondego and one of Edmond’s major allies. In the novel, Haydée became Edmond’s lover by the story’s end. In this television movie, she is basically an ally who was limited to two scenes. I suspect that the character’s North African background made the producers unwilling to to be faithful to Dumas’ novel and give Isabelle De Valvert, who had portrayed Haydée, more screen time, aside from two scenes. Pity. Speaking of Edmond’s love life, I noticed that once he became the Count of Monte Cristo, Richard Chamberlain and Kate Nelligan, who portrayed Mercédès Mondego, barely shared any screen time together. In fact, it seemed as if Edmond barely thought about Mercédès. So when the film ended with him rushing toward Mercédès to declare his never ending love for her, it seemed so false . . . and rushed. I do not recall seeing any build up to this scene.

One must remember that “THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO” is not only a drama, but also a swashbuckler. And that means action sequences. There were not that many in the movie, but there were a few memorable moments. The final action sequence featured a duel between Edmond and his former friend, Mondego. It never happened in the novel, but I found it interesting to watch a duel between two former onscreen swashbucklers – Richard Chamberlain and Tony Curtis. It was . . . decent. But if I must be honest, I was more impressed by the duel between Carlo Puri and Alessio Orano, who portrayed Andrea Benedetto (a person set up by Edmond to be a part of de Villefort’s past) and Alessio Orano, who portrayed a former cowardly neighbor of Edmond named Caderousse. Neither duel was particularly long, but I found the Benedetto-Caderousse duel to be more physical and exciting.

I have mixed views of the movie’s production values. On one hand, I found myself very impressed by Walter Patriarca’s production designs and Andrew Patriarca’s art direction. I thought both did an excellent job of utilizing the film’s Italian locations to re-create early 19th century France and Italy. I was also impressed by Aldo Tonti’s solid photography for the film. I found it clear and somewhat colorful. My feelings regarding the film’s costumes are not as positive. I noticed that there is no costume designer named for the film. Instead, Luciana Marinucci was hired as the costume/wardrobe “supervisor”. This makes me wonder if a good deal of the film’s costumes came from warehouses in Italy. A good deal of the fabrics used for movie’s costumes struck me as questionable. Cheap. And quite frankly, I found this somewhat disappointing for a first-rate movie like this. I also found the hairstyle worn by actress Taryn Power, as shown in the image below:

It bore no resemblance to the hairstyles worn by women during the early 1830s.

I certainly had no complaints about the film’s cast. All either gave solid or excellent performances. The movie boasted solid performances from the likes of Anthony Dawson, Angelo Infanti, Harold Bromley, George Willing, Alessio Orano, Taryn Power, Dominic Guard, Dominic Barto and Isabelle De Valvert. Although I have a high regard for Kate Nelligan as an actress, I must admit that I was not that overly impressed by her performance as Mercédès Mondego. I thought it was solid, but not particularly mind blowing. It seemed as if she really had not much material to work with, aside from those scenes that featured Edmond’s arrest and her final scene.

But thankfully, “THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO” does boast some excellent and memorable performances. One came from Carlo Puri, who gave a very charismatic performance as Andrea Benedetto, a former galleys convict used by Edmond in his scheme against Gérard de Villefort. Speaking of the latter, Louis Jordan was superb as the ambitious prosecutor who was responsible for Edmond’s incarceration in the first place. I was especially impressed by his performance in the scene that featured the revelation about the illegitimate son he had tried to kill years earlier. Another superb performance came from Donald Pleasence as Danglars. I thought he did an excellent job in transforming his character from a resentful and jealous seaman into the greedy banker. Trevor Howard earned a well deserved Emmy nomination for his portrayal of Edmond’s mentor, the imprisoned former soldier-turned-priest. I found his last scene especially poignant to watch. This was probably the first production in which I saw Tony Curtis portray a villain.   And I thought he gave an excellent performance as the broodingly jealous Ferdinand Mondego, who seemed to have no qualms about destroying others for the sake of his feelings and his ambitions. “THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO” proved to be Richard Chamberlain’s second (or third) production that was an adaptation of an Alexandre Dumas père novel. Like Howard, he had earned a well deserved Emmy nomination for his portrayal of the revenge driven Edmond Dantès. Chamberlain did a superb job in conveying the growing development of Edmond’s character from the clean-cut, yet ambitious young seaman, to the long-suffering prisoner wallowing in despair and finally, the cool and manipulative man, whose desire for vengeance had blinded him from the suffering of other innocents.

In the end, I have some problems with certain aspects of “THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO”, including the portrayal of some characters , a few changes in the narrative’s ending and some of the costumes. Despite them, I can honestly say that I enjoyed the television movie and thought it did a fine job adapting Alexandre Dumas père novel. And this is due to Sidney Carroll’s well-written screenplay, David Greene’s solid direction and an excellent cast led by the always superb Richard Chamberlain.

Advertisements

Favorite Episodes of “UNDERGROUND” (2016-2017)

Below are images of my favorite episodes from the WGN series, “UNDERGROUND”. Created by Misha Green and Joe Pokaski, the series stars Jurnee Smollett-Bell and Aldis Hodge: 

FAVORITE EPISODES OF UNDERGROUND (2016-2017)

1 - 1.05 Run and Guns

1. (1.05) “Run & Gun” – The attempt by the escapees from the Macon plantation to catch a northbound train out of the state is complicated at every turn; while Tom and Susanna Macon have the remaining slaves – especially Pearly Mae, who was captured while trying to run – questioned about their plans.

3 - 1.04 Firefly

2. (1.04) “Firefly” – A notorious slave hunter named August Pullman and his son Ben track Noah and Rosalee, following their escape from the Macon plantation at the end of the previous episode. The other slaves involved in Noah’s plot contemplate running, as well. Meanwhile, John and Elizabeth face a lethal predicament, when one of the runaways they are sheltering turns hostile.

3. (2.03) “Ache” – Underground Railroad conductor/Macon 7 fugitive slave Rosalee struggle to evade Patty Canon’s slave catching band. Her mother Ernestine is haunted by her past, while adjusting to her new role as a field hand on a South Carolina Sea Island plantation.

2 - 1.09 Black and Blue

4. (1.09) “Black & Blue” – One of the escapees, former house slave Rosalee, is captured in a small Kentucky town and held at a slaughter house, while fellow escapees Noah and Cato plot to rescue her. Underground Railroad agent John Hawkes (who is also Tom Mason’s brother) learns of his wife Elizabeth’s reckless action to save the orphaned escapee Boo from her ex-fiancé and U.S. Federal Marshal Kyle Risdin.

5 - 1.01 Macon Seven

5. (1.01) “The Macon 7” – In the series premiere, Noah begins to plot an escape from the Macon plantation to the Ohio River and free states. He contemplates on choosing which slaves to be included in his plan, while dealing with a hostile Cato, who also happens to be one of the plantation field drivers.

Honorable Mention: (2.08) “Auld Acquaintance” – When Rosalee’s plan to rescue her younger brother James from the Macon plantation fails in the previous episode, (2.07) “28”, fellow Macon 7 fugitive Noah struggles to form a new plan to save sister and brother. Ernestine’s attempt to escape from the South Carolina plantation is thwarted by slave catcher August Pullman.

 

Favorite Television Productions Set in the 1930s

Below is a list of my favorite television productions (so far) that are set in the 1930s: 

FAVORITE TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS SET IN THE 1930s

1. “Agatha Christie’s Poirot” (1989-2013) – David Suchet starred as Agatha Chrsitie’s most famous sleuth, Hercule Poirot, in this long-running series that adapted her Poirot novels and short stories.

2. “Moviola: The Scarlett O’Hara War” (1980) – Tony Curtis starred as David O. Selznick in the second episode of the miniseries, “Moviola”. The television movie featured Selznick’s search for the right actress to portray the leading character in his movie adaptation of “Gone With the Wind”.

3. “Edward & Mrs. Simpson” (1978) – Edward Fox and Cynthia Harris starred the 1978 adaptation of the events leading to the 1936 abdication of King Edward VIII of Great Britain. The seven-part miniseries was based upon Frances Donaldson’s 1974 biography.

4. “Mildred Pierce” – Todd Haynes directed and co-wrote this television adaptation of James M. Cain’s 1940 novel about a middle-class divorcee, who struggles to maintain her family’s position during the Great Depression and earn her narcissist older daughter’s respect. Emmy winners Kate Winslet, Guy Pearce and Emmy nominee Evan Rachel Wood starred.

5. “Upstairs, Downstairs” (2010-2012) – Heidi Thomas created this continuation of the 1971-1975 series about the Hollands and their servants, the new inhabitants at old Bellamy residence at 105 Eaton Place. Jean Marsh, Keely Hawes, Ed Stoppard and Claire Foy starred.

6. “And Then There Were None” (2015) – Sarah Phelps produced and wrote this television adaptation of Agatha Christie’s 1939 novel. Craig Viveiros directed.

7. “The Last Tycoon” (2016-2017) – Billy Ray created this television adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s unfinished novel about a Hollywood producer during the mid-1930s. Matt Bomer starred.

8. “Indian Summers” (2015-2016) – Paul Rutman created this series about the British community’s summer residence at Simla during the British Raj of the 1930s. The series starred Henry Lloyd-Hughes, Nikesh Patel, Jemima West and Julie Walters.

9. “Damnation” (2017-2018) Tony Tost created this series about the labor conflicts in the Midwest, during the Great Depression. Killian Scott and Logan Marshall-Green starred.

10. “The Lot” (1999-2001) – This series centered around a fictional movie studio called Sylver Screen Pictures during the late 1930s. The series was created by Rick Mitz.

“THE MIRROR CRACK’D FROM SIDE TO SIDE” (2010) Review

“THE MIRROR CRACK’D FROM SIDE TO SIDE” (2010) Review

The 2010 television movie, “THE MIRROR CRACK’D FROM SIDE TO SIDE”, marked the third screen adaptation of Agatha Christie’s 1962 novel of the same title. This particular adaptation from the “AGATHA CHRISTIE’S MARPLE”series starred Julia McKenzie as the leading character, Miss Jane Marple. 

Considering this is the third adaptation of Christie’s novel, I almost feel inclined to compare it to the 1980 and 1992 adaptations. Perhaps I might every now and then. Otherwise, I will try to focus on the 2010 movie itself. The story began with the arrival of Hollywood starlet Marina Gregg and her husband, director Jason Rudd to Jane Marple’s home village, St. Mary’s Mead, England. The pair is in England to film Marina’s latest film about the Egyptian queen Cleopatra. Marina and Jason have purchased Gossington Hall, the former home of Jane Marple’s recently widowed friend, Mrs. Dolly Bantry. The cinematic pair eventually Marina host a fête and reception for St. Mary Mead’s citizens. But due to a minor accident that left her foot sprained, Miss Marple was unable to attend. Among those guests that appeared at Gossington Hall for the fête were:

*Marina’s former husband and gossip columnist Vincent Hogg, who has a personal grudge against her
*Lola Brewster, Vincent’s current wife and Marina’s younger screen rival and Jason’s former lover
*Jason’s personal secretary, Ella Blunt, who happens to be infatuated with him
*Mrs. Heather Babcock, an annoying and self-involved St. Mary’s Mead citizen, who had first met Marina during World War II
*Local photographer Margot Pence, who happens to share a past connection to Marina

While Heather Babcock bores Marina with an account of their previous meeting during the reception at Gossington Hall, she drinks a cocktail meant for Marina and dies. Miss Marple and Detective-Inspector Hewitt discover that the cocktail had been poisoned. Both race to learn the killer’s identity before he or she can reach the true target – Marina Gregg.

I have always been surprised that “The Mirror Crack’d From Side to Side” is not that highly regarded by literary critics. Although some regarded as among the best of her later novels, it remains not as highly regarded as many of her earlier works. This is a pity, because I have always found the 1962 novel to be among Christie’s more interesting works.

There were aspects of “THE MIRROR CRACK’D FROM SIDE TO SIDE” that . . . well, irked me. The production cast actor Nigel Harman as Marina Gregg’s director/husband Jason Rudd. Harman is over twenty years older than Lindsay Duncan, who portrayed Marina. May-December romances on screen are not as uncommon as one would think – regardless of whether the man or woman is older. If the two performers in question have the screen dynamics to overcome this age discrepancy, then fine. The problem is that Harman lacked the screen presence to keep up with the likes of Duncan. He was no Rock Hudson or Barry Newman. Come to think of it, I had the same problem with the Vincent Hogg-Lola Brewster pairing. Actress Hannah Waddingham is over thirty years older than Martin Jarvis. And yet, she seemed to lack the screen presence to keep up with the likes of Jarvis. At least in this television production.

I had another problem with the Vincent Hogg character . . . namely his profession as a gossip columnist. Hogg is supposed to be one of Marina Gregg’s former husbands. If the Vincent Hogg character had met and married Marina before he became a gossip columnist, I could understand this. But a Hollywood star marrying a columnist? I cannot see it. I also had a problem with the Heather Babcock character. I do not mean to be an ageist, but I feel that the actress who portrayed her, Caroline Quentin, was too old at the age of 49-50 to portray Mrs. Babcock. Then again, I could be using age to hide from the fact that I did not find Ms. Quentin’s performance convincing.

Did “THE MIRROR CRACK’D FROM SIDE TO SIDE” live up to this interesting aspect of the novel. I honestly do not know. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Do not get me wrong. With the exceptions of a few changes regarding the story’s characters, the 2010 television adaptation is more than less faithful to Christie’s novel. Thanks to Lindsay Duncan’s superb performance and Tom Shankland’s direction, it did a great job in conveying Marina Gregg’s fragile, yet artistic and ruthless personality and how she managed to accumulate so many enemies. There were certain scenes in the movie that I enjoyed. They include Miss Marple and Mrs. Bantry’s initial meeting with Marina Gregg and Jason Rudd at Gossington Hall for tea; any scene with Victoria Smurfit, who gave a very sharp, yet entertaining performance as Jason’s secretary, Elsa Blunt; the rather hilarious social encounter between the citizens of St. Mary’s Mead and the Hollywood newcomers at fête, and the scene featuring Marina’s breakdown during her filming of a Cleopatra movie.

I certainly had no problems with the movie’s production values. Sheena Napier, who worked on her fifth (out of eleven) “AGATHA CHRISTIE’S MARPLE” movie, did an excellent job in re-creating the fashions of mid-20th century Britain. I can also say the same about Jeff Tessler, who skillfully took television viewers back to the same time period. And I felt somewhat satisfied with Cinders Forshaw’s photography. I say . . . somewhat. Although I found his photography beautiful and colorful, I felt annoyed by the soft focus style that hinted the production’s time period. So unnecessary.

I have already commented on those performances featured in “THE MIRROR CRACK’D FROM SIDE TO SIDE” – like Lindsay Duncan, Victoria Smurfit and Caroline Quentin. I might as well comment on the other performances that I had missed. Julia McKenzie gave a marvelous performance, as always, as the brilliant and observant amateur sleuth, Miss Jane Marple. I noticed, however, that her performance seemed a bit more subtle than usual. Was this due to working alongside the more ebullient Joanna Lumley? I do not know. But I did noticed that the latter’s portrayal of Dolly Bantry seemed even more extroverted than she did in 2004’s “THE BODY IN THE LIBRARY”. I enjoyed Ms. Lumley’s performance, but there were times when I found it a bit grating. I may not have been impressed by Nigel Harman’s chemistry with Lindsay Duncan, but I thought he gave a solid performance as Jason Rudd. On the other hand, I enjoyed Hugh Bonneville’s skillful portrayal of the cool and slightly sharp-tongued Detective-Inspector Hewitt. He also had a surprisingly good screen chemistry with Julia McKenzie. Martin Jarvis nearly dominated every scene he was in as Marina’s resentful, yet malicious ex-husband Vincent Hogg. I wish I could say the same for Hannah Waddingham, but I cannot. Even in those scenes in which she did not share with Jarvis, she made a very disappointing Lola Brewster. I certainly was not disappointed with Charlotte Riley’s excellent, yet cool portrayal of the enigmatic photographer, Margot Bence. I can also say the same about Brennan Brown, who gave a very entertaining performance as Marina’s highly nervous secretary, Hailey Preston. The television also featured solid performances from Olivia Darnley, Samuel Barnett and Neil Stuke and Michele Doctrice.

“THE MIRROR CRACK’D FROM SIDE TO SIDE” is not the best Jane Marple movie I have ever seen . . . or even one of the best. Nor can I say that it is the best adaptation of Agatha Christie’s 1962 novel. But despite its flaws, I must admit that I still managed to enjoy it, thanks to Tom Shankland’s direction, Kevin Elyot’s screenplay and a first-rate cast led by Julia McKenzie.

Top Five Favorite Episodes of “THE CROWN” Season Two (2017)

image

Below is a list of my favorite episodes from Season Two of the Netflix series, “THE CROWN”. Created by Peter Morgan, the series starred Claire Foy and Matt Smith as Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh:

 

 

TOP FIVE FAVORITE EPISODES OF “THE CROWN” SEASON TWO (2017)

image

1. (2.05) “Marionettes” – After Queen Elizabeth II makes a tone-deaf speech at a Jaguar factory, she and the British monarchy come under public attack by an outspoken liberal peer named Lord Altrincham.

 

 

image

2. (2.03) “Lisbon” – Palace insiders try to prevent the scandalous divorce of the Duke of Edinburgh’s aide, Lieutenant-Commander Mike Parker, that could reflect poorly on the former and the monarchy. Prime Minister Anthony Eden faces censure from his cabinet and the press over the Suez Crisis.

 

 

image

3. (2.09) “Paterfamilias” – Prince Philip insists that Prince Charles attend Gordonstoun, his alma mater in Scotland. Also, he reminisces about the life-changing difficulties he experienced there as a student.

 

 

image

4. (2.07) “Matrimonium” – A heartbreaking letter from former lover Peter Townsend spurs Princess Margaret to make a bold proposal to her current lover, photographer Antony Armstrong-Jones. The Queen has good news that causes complications for Margaret.

 

 

image

5. (2.02) “A Company of Men” – Elizabeth feels disconnected from Philip during his five-month royal tour in the South Pacific. Meanwhile, Eden copes with ill health and international pressure to withdraw British troops from Egypt during the Suez Crisis.

 

 

image

 

“JUDITH KRANTZ’S TILL WE MEET AGAIN” (1989) Review

“JUDITH KRANTZ’S TILL WE MEET AGAIN” (1989) Review

One of the most popular romance novelists to emerge during the 1970s and 1980s was Judith Krantz, whose series of novels seemed to be part romance/part family saga. At least six (or seven) of her novels were adapted as television miniseries. One of them was the 1988 novel, “Till We Meet Again”, which became the 1989 CBS miniseries, “JUDITH KRANTZ’S TILL WE MEET AGAIN”

Set between 1913 and 1952, the early 1950s, “JUDITH KRANTZ’S TILL WE MEET AGAIN” (aka “TILL WE MEET AGAIN”) focused on the lives of Eve, the daughter of a French provincial middle-class doctor and her two daughters, Delphine and Marie-Frederique ‘Freddy’ de Lancel. The story began in 1913 when Eve met a traveling music hall performer named Alain Marais. When she learned that her parents planned to agree to an arranged marriage for her, Eve joined Alain on a train to Paris and the pair became lovers and roommates. Within a year, Alain became seriously ill and Eve was forced to find work to maintain their finances. With the help of a neighbor and new friend, Vivianne de Biron, Eve became a music hall performer herself and Paris’ newest sensation. Out of jealousy, anger and embarrassment, Alain ended their romance.

During World War I, Eve met Paul de Lancel, the heir to an upper-class family that produces champagne who had been recently widowed by a suicidal wife. Following Eve’s marriage to Paul, the couple conceived Delphine and Freddy and Paul became a diplomat. The latter also became estranged from his son Bruno, who was eventually raised by his maternal aristocratic grandparents, who blamed Paul for their daughter’s suicide. By 1930, Eve and Paul found themselves in Los Angeles, where he served as that city’s French consul. And over the next two decades, the de Lancel family dealt with new careers, love, the rise of fascism, the movie industries, World War II, post-war economics, romantic betrayals and Bruno’s villainous and malicious antics.

“JUDITH KRANZ’S TILL WE MEET AGAIN” is not what I would call a television masterpiece. Or even among the best television productions I have ever seen. Considering its source, a period piece romance novel – something most literary critics would dismiss as melodramatic trash – it is not surprising that I would regard the 1989 this way. Then again, the 1972 Academy Award Best Picture winner, “THE GODFATHER”, was based on what many (including myself) believe was pulp fiction trash. However, “TILL WE MEET AGAIN” did not have Francis Ford Coppola to transform trash into Hollywood gold. I am not dismissing the 1989 miniseries as trash. But I would never regard it as a fine work of art.

And I did have a few problems with the production. I found the pacing, thanks to director Charles Jarrott, along with screenwriters Andrew Peter Marin and (yes) Judith Krantz; rather uneven. I think the use of montages could have helped because there were times when the miniseries rushed through some of its sequences . . . to the point that I found myself wondering what had earlier occurred in the story. This seemed to be the case with Eve’s backstory. Her rise from the daughter of a provincial doctor to Parisian music hall sensation to a diplomat’s wife struck as a bit too fast. It seemed as if Jarrott, Marin and Krantz were in a hurry to commence on Freddy and Delphine’s story arcs. Another problem I had was the heavy emphasis on Freddy’s post war story arc. Both Delphine and Eve were nearly pushed to the background, following the end of World War II. It is fortunate that the miniseries’ focus on the post-war years played out in its last 20 to 30 minutes.

I also had a problem with how Marin and Krantz ended Delphine’s relationship with her older half-brother Bruno. In the novel, Delphine ended her friendship with Bruno after his attempt to pimp her out to some German Army official during the Nazi’s occupation of France. This also happened in the miniseries, but Marin and Krantz took it too far by taking a page from Krantz’s 1980 novel, “Princess Daisy” . . . by having Bruno rape Delphine after her refusal to sleep with the German officer. I found this unnecessary, considering that the two screenwriters never really followed up on the consequences of the rape. If this was an attempt to portray Bruno a monster, it was unnecessary. His collaboration of the Nazis, his attempt to pimp out Delphine, his sale of the de Lancels’ precious stock of champagne and his participation in the murders of three locals who knew about the sale struck me as enough to regard him as a monster.

My remaining problems with “TILL WE MEET AGAIN” proved to minor. Many of Krantz’s novels tend to begin as period dramas and end in the present time. I cannot say the same about her 1988 novel. The entire story is set entirely in the past – a forty-year period between pre-World War I and the early 1950s. Yet, I managed to spot several anachronisms in the production. Minor ones, perhaps, but anachronisms nevertheless. One of the most obvious anachronisms proved to be the hairstyles for many of the female characters – especially the de Lancel sisters, Delphine and Freddy. This anachronism was especially apparent in the hairstyles they wore in the 1930s sequences – long and straight. Most young girls and women wore soft shoulder bobs that were slightly above the shoulders during that decade. Speaking of anachronism, the actor who portrayed Armand Sadowski, a Polish-born director in the French film industry, wore a mullet. A 1980s-style mullet during those same 1930s sequences. Sigh! The make-up worn by many of the female characters struck me as oddly modern. Another anachronistic popped up in the production’s music. I am not claiming that late 1980s songs were featured in the miniseries. The songs selected were appropriate to the period. However, I noticed that those songs were performed and arranged in a more modern style. It was like watching television characters performing old songs at a retro music show. It simply felt . . . no, it sound wrong to me.

Despite my complaints, I did enjoy “TILL WE MEET AGAIN”. In fact, I believe that its virtues were strong enough to overshadow its flaws. One, Judith Krantz had created a first-rate family saga . . . one that both she and screenwriter Andrew Peter Marin did justice to in this adaptation. Two, this is the only Krantz family saga that I can remember that is set completely in the past. Most of her family sagas start in the past and spend at least two-thirds of the narrative in the present. Not “TILL WE MEET AGAIN”. More importantly, this family saga is more or less told through the eyes of three women. I have noticed how rare it is for family sagas in which the narratives are dominated by women, unless it only featured one woman as the main protagonist. And neither Eve, Delphine or Freddy are portrayed as instantaneous ideal women. Yes, they are beautiful and talented in different ways. But all three women were forced to grow or develop in the story.

Being the oldest and the mother of the other two, Eve was forced to grow up during the first third of the saga. However, she spent a great deal of emotional angst over her daughters’ lives and the fear that her past as a music hall entertainer may have had a negative impact on her husband’s diplomatic career. Eve and Freddy had to deal with a disappointing love (or two) before finding the right man in their lives. Delphine managed to find the right man at a young age after becoming an actress with the film industry in France. But World War II, and the Nazi regime’s anti-Semitic policies managed to endanger and interrupt her romance. Freddy’s love life involved a bittersweet romance with an older man – the very man who taught her to become a pilot; a quick romance and failed marriage to a British aristocrat; and the latter’s closest friend, an American pilot who had harbored years of unrequited love for Freddy until she finally managed to to notice him.

Despite the saga being dominated by Eve, Delphine and Freddy; the two male members of the de Lancel family also had strong roles in this saga. I thought both Krantz and Marin did an excellent job in their portrayal of the complex relationship between Paul de Lancel and his only son and oldest child, Bruno de Lancel, who also happened to be Delphine and Freddy’s half-brother. I also found it interesting how Bruno’s unforgiving maternal grand-parents’ over-privileged upbringing of him and their snobbish regard for Eve had tainted and in the end, torn apart the relationship between father and son. Mind you, Bruno’s own ugly personality did not help. But he was, after all, a creation of the Marquis and Marquise de Saint-Fraycourt. Ironically, Paul also had his troubles with both Delphine and Freddy – especially during their late adolescence. Between Delphine’s forays into Hollywood’s nighttime society behind her parents’ backs and Freddy’s decision to skip college and become a stunt pilot, Paul’s relationships with his daughters endured troubled waters. And I thought the screenwriters did an excellent job in conveying the diplomat’s complex relationships with both of them.

And despite my low opinion of the hairstyles featured in “TILL WE MEET AGAIN”, I cannot deny that the production values featured in the miniseries struck me as quite impressive. Roger Hall did an excellent job in his production designs that more or less re-created various locations on two continents between the years of 1913 and 1952. His work was ably supported by Rhiley Fuller and Mike Long’s art direction, Donald Elmblad and Peter Walpole’s set decorations, and Alan Hume’s cinematography, which did such an exceptional job of capturing the beauty and color of its various locations. However, I must admit that I really enjoyed Jerry R. Allen and Robin Fraser-Paye’s costume designs. I thought they did an excellent job of recapturing the fashions of the early-to-mid 20th century.

If I must be honest, I cannot think of any performance that blew my mind. I am not claiming that the acting featured in “TILL WE MEET AGAIN” were terrible, let alone mediocre. Frankly, I believe that all of the major actors and actresses did a great job. Courtney Cox gave a very energetic performance as the ambitious and aggressive Freddy de Lancel. Bruce Boxleitner also gave an energetic performance as Jock Hampton, the best friend of Freddy’s husband . . . but with a touch of pathos, as he conveyed his character’s decade long unrequited love for the red-headed Mademoiselle de Lancel. Mia Sara gave a spot-on portrayal of Delphine de Lancel from an ambitious, yet insecure adolescent to a sophisticated and more mature woman. And again, I can the same about Lucy Gutteridge’s portrayal of Eve de Lancel, who developed the character from an impulsive adolescent to a mature woman who proved to be her family’s backbone. Hugh Grant was sufficiently sophisticated and hissable as the villainous Bruno de Lancel without turning his performance into a cliche. Charles Shaughnessy skillfully managed to convey to portray the worthy man behind director Armand Sadowski’s womanizing charm. John Vickery gave a interested and complex portrayal of Freddy’s British aristocrat husband, Anthony “Tony” Longbridge. And Maxwell Caufield was excellent as the charming, yet ego-driven singer Alain Marais. I believe one of the best performances came from Michael York, who was excellent as the emotionally besieged Paul de Lancel, struggling to deal with a stalled diplomatic career, two strong-willed daughters and a treacherous son. I believe the other best performance came from Barry Bostwick, who was excellent as Freddy’s first love Terrence ‘Mac’ McGuire. I thought he did a great job of portraying a man torn between his love for Freddy and his guilt over being in love with someone who was young enough to be his daughter.

Look, I realize that “JUDITH KRANTZ’S TILL WE MEET AGAIN” is basically a glorified period piece melodrama disguised as a family saga. I realize that. And I realize that it is not perfect. Nor would I regard it as an example of the best American television can offer. But at its heart, I thought it was basically a well written family saga that centered around three remarkable women. Thanks to Judith Krantz and Andrew Peter Marin’s screenplay; Charles Jarrott’s direction and a first-rate cast, the 1989 miniseries proved to be first-rate piece of television drama.

 

“STAR TREK DISCOVERY” Commentary: (2.01) “Brother”

“STAR TREK DISCOVERY” COMMENTARY: (2.01) “Brother”

I just recently viewed the Season Two premiere of “STAR TREK DISCOVERY”(2.01) “Brother” on CBS All Access. On one hand, the episode struck me as a solid entry for a Trek show that set up the second season’s story arc and introduction of new characters. This is nothing knew. I have witnessed similar set ups for shows like “BABYLON 5” and “BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER”. But what I did not count on were some differences and characters that would leave me scratching my head. 

I do not think I have ever encountered a Trek show that has generated so much conflict and controversy as “STAR TREK DISCOVERY”. I take that back. There has been one other series that has generated controversy close to the same level as “DISCOVERY” . . . namely “STAR TREK VOYAGER”. This does not strike me as surprising, since both shows featured leading characters who are women. “DISCOVERY” took it to another level in which its leading character, Commander (formerly Specialist) Michael Burnham, is not only portrayed by an African-American actress, but is not the starship/space station’s commanding officer.

I noticed that a great deal of what struck me as vague and nitpicking complaints had been inflicted upon “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” during and after its first season. One of those complaints proved to be certain characters, including Michael Burnham, lacked full development by the end of Season One. I found myself scratching my head over this complaint. I mean . . . what on earth? I have never heard of a fictional character in a television show that is fully developed by the end of its first season, let alone before the end of its run. Never. And “DISCOVERY” had only finished its first season. Why on earth were so many of the franchise’s fans either criticizing that most of its characters are not fully developed or demanding that they should be after one season? This is not miniseries or television show. If “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” is allowed to complete its full run and the characters are still “not fully developed”, then I believe they would have something to complain about.

Another complaint that left me scratching my head was the lack of humor during its first season. In fact, this particular complaint has led many to compare “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” with another science-fiction series that had begun around the same time – “THE ORVILLE”. The Trek franchise has never been a franchise that was dominated by humor. And I do recall a good deal of humor in Season One of “STAR TREK DISCOVERY”, especially in episodes like (1.07) “Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad” or in scenes featuring Mary Wiseman as Cadet Sylvia Tilly. Aside from those scenes featuring Wiseman and even Rainn Wilson (as con man Harry Mudd), most of the humor featured in Season One tend to be more subtle.

I am relieved to notice that in regard to character development, the show runners for “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” did not rush to portray Michael Burnham or any of the other characters fully developed. The Season Two premiere, “Brother”, hinted that the show planned to explore Burnham’s past experiences as a member of Ambassador Sarek’s household and especially, her relationship with adoptive brother Spock. Judging from the Season Two previews I have seen, Burnham’s relationship with Ash Tyler/Voq will also be touched upon. So, if Season Two does not feature the full character development of the series’ leading lady and the other supporting characters, I will not be disappointed. If anything, I might feel a sense of relief. The last thing I want is for the series to engage in rushed storytelling.

But one aspect of the Season Two premiere that left me scratching my head was the level of humor featured in the episode. It almost struck me as out of place. Now, “Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad” featured some rather heavy humor. I found nothing wrong with this. Many of the Trek series have aired the occasional humorous episode. The problem with the humor in “Brother” is that there was nothing about the plot or the characters that should have marked it as a humor-filled episode. Many of the familiar characters – including Burnham – were either spouting lines or reacting to situations that made me wonder if screenwriters Ted Sullivan, Gretchen J. Berg and Aaron Harberts may have went a bit too far.

“Brother” also featured the introduction of Commander Denise “Jett” Reno, Chief Engineer of the U.S.S. Hiawatha, who had been rescued by a landing party from the Discovery after spending ten months caring for wounded crew members on an asteroid, during the Federation-Klingon War. Reno, portrayed by actress-comedian Tig Notaro, managed to spout more jokes in a space of five minutes than any other actor or actress who had appeared in a Trek series or movie. I think Notaro might proved to be a rival for Wiseman on who can be the funniest member of the cast. In the end, the humor in “Brother” struck me as a bit over-the-top, especially for an episode that is not obviously a humorous one like “Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad”.

So what were the screenwriters thinking? Did they change the tonal style of “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” to appease those fans who had complained that the series was “too serious” or “too angsty”? If so, they have made a mistake. I found this tonal shift for Season Two rather forced and mind boggling. I do not see the necessity of changing the series’ tonal style. I want to watch “STAR TREK DISCOVERY”, not some borderline copycat of “THE ORVILLE”. Not even the other Trek series from the past had such a drastic tonal shift. After all, the edgier style of Season One did not prevent “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” from being a hit or creating an entire new stable of fans. Had the show runners forgotten this? Or were they too busy paying attention to the narrow-minded fans who wanted the series to simply re-create the past?

I noticed that the introduction of Anson Mount as Captain Christopher Pike of the U.S.S. Enterprise had also contributed to this tonal shift. Mount’s Pike came off as slightly humorous and yet, somewhat bland. To me, Pike seemed like the epitome of the white male leading man that so many science-fiction/fantasy geeks seemed to long – especially in the past three to four years. The problem I have with this is that as an old fan of the AMC series, “HELL ON WHEELS”, I know that the talented Mount is capable of portraying a character more interesting than Pike. At one point in “Brother”, Pike had expressed his regret that the Enterprise did not participate in the Federation-Klingon War. Was this regret a consequence of survivor’s guilt? Or is this nothing more than the regret of someone in the military, who wished he or she could have been in the center of the action. I hope that it is the former. On the other hand, watching Pike participate in the landing party that found Reno and the remains of the Hiawatha makes me wonder otherwise. As the Discovery’s current temporary captain, his presence in the Away team struck me as questionable. This is not “STAR TREK” circa 1966-68. And so far, I do not find the character’s regret for not participating in the war against the Klingons as not very interesting.

And why is the Christopher Pike character a regular on this show? Why is he a regular for Season Two? Why was Pike, along with two Enterprise officers, needed to investigate those seven red bursts that had appeared in the Alpha Quadrant? The Discovery is originally a science vessel. The Enterprise is not. Why did the show runners have Starfleet order Pike to take command of Discovery in the first place? Mount could have been cast as the Discovery’s new captain who was other than Pike. Or Saru could have been promoted as the Discovery’s new commander. He deserved it. After all, ever since the discovery that Captain Gabriel Lorca was an imposter from the Mirror Universe, Saru had more or less acted as the ship’s captain. He was the one who led Discovery and its crew out of the Mirror Universe. And he stood behind Burnham, Tilly and Tyler when they exposed Starfleet’s plot to destroy the Klingon homeworld. Instead, either Alex Kurtzman or Aaron Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg drummed up some lame reason to brng Pike aboard the Discovery so that the show can have some slightly bland and familiar character as the main authority figure in order to soothe the nerves of some very loud and negative fans.

Is it possible that these fans could not deal with the chaotic Gabriel Lorca as captain or who still cannot deal with the non-white Michael Burnham as the show’s lead. Or do they simply want to recapture the past? Right now, it seems as if Kurtzman, Harberts and Berg want to please these fanboys, who want the show to recapture the past. After watching “Brother”, I blame them for listening to these fanboys, instead of basking in the success of Season One and moving forward with more innovative stories. It just seems a crime that producers like Kurtzman, Harberts, Berg, the Warner Brothers suits and Kathleen Kennedy are so afraid of the loud and narrow-minded fanboys that they would rather keep their respective franchises either mired in the past or borderline bland to please these fans. And in doing so, they end up ignoring the fact that when their franchises were innovative, they were also box office or ratings successes.

Right now, I find the Trek fandom, along with those for other franchises, rather frustrating and narrow-minded. These fans would rather cling to the past, rather than enjoy something different or innovative. And when producers and show runners like Harberts, Berg or Kurtzman kowtow to the loud and rather conservative-minded fans and critics, entertainment and art in pop culture becomes in danger of declining into a sad affair. Does this mean that Season Two of “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” await such a fate? I hope not. I hope that the season’s future episodes might prove to be just as fascinating and innovative as those from Season One. I hope so. Because if I have to be honest, I found “Brother”to be jarring and something of a head scratcher.