Recently, I did a re-watch of the DisneyPlus/Marvel Cinematic Universe limited series, “WANDAVISION”. After viewing the penultimate episode, (1.08) “Previously On”, I realized I had a few issues with the series.
The seventh episode, (1.07) “Breaking the Fourth Wall” ended with this revelation that the long-living witch Agatha Harkness was behind the whole psychic anomaly surrounding the fictional town of Westview, New Jersey. Yet the revelations from the flashbacks forced upon former Avenger Wanda Maximoff by Harkness in “Previously On” revealed that . . . yes, Wanda had originated the anomaly. She started it in a moment of anger and grief over the permanent death of the synthezoid and former Avenger named Vision. In other words, Agatha’s claim in “Breaking the Fourth Wall” that she had been behind the whole incident merely contradicted what Wanda’s flashbacks had revealed. So, what was Agatha’s role over the Westview incident? An enabler? A disrupter? As it turned out . . . both. Agatha had occasionally disrupted Wanda’s anomaly in order to learn the true nature of the latter’s powers and steal them. This means that Agatha’s little “confession”, “It Was Agatha All Along” was nothing more than a lie. A contradiction. Something to serve as a cliffhanger for “Breaking the Fourth Wall”, perhaps? Regardless, I thought it was a sloppy move on the part of screenwriter Cameron Squires and showrunner Jac Schaeffer.
While viewing “WANDAVISION”, it occurred to me that it basically seemed like a character study – touched by science-fiction and magic. Which leads me to wonder why the MCU thought it was a good idea to convey this narrative via a nine-episode series. Since nearly every episode is roughly 25 minutes, I have come to the conclusion that this story is roughly four hours. Or nearly four hours. Four hours for a character study? Seriously? Do not get me wrong. I have a good opinion of the series’ narrative. But I found this 25-minute episode format rather frustrating. And unnecessary for this kind of story. “WANDAVISION” could have easily been told via a motion picture with a 100-minute running time.
As for the television sitcom format that the series used to convey its narrative – I never warmed up to it. To be honest, I found it distracting and nothing more than a clever gimmick. Mind you, “WANDAVISION” did not remain stuck in one particular time period. The narrative progressed from the 1950s to the 2000s with each episode. My family and I are in the middle of a re-watch of “AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.” Season Seven. This was the season in which the protagonists had skipped through history trying to prevent the Big Bads from prematurely destroying S.H.I.E.L.D. My sister pointed out that it was possible the writers of “WANDAVISION” had copied the time travel narrative from “S.H.I.E.L.D.” Season Seven and used it to convey the television sitcom formats from the 1950s to the 2000s or 2010s. In other words, Kevin Feige, Jac Schaeffer and the series’ writers may have slightly plagiarized Jed Whedon and Maurissa Tancharoen. That is something to think about.
Also, one particular episode featured a major blooper. I am referring to the sixth episode, (1.06) “All-New Halloween Spooktacular!”. The episode featured the marquee for the town’s movie theater:
First of all, when is this particular episode set? The 1990s or the 2000s? One of the films listed on theater’s marquee, “THE PARENT TRAP”, a remake of the 1961 Disney film, had been released in 1998. The other film listed, the award-winning animated film, “THE INCREDIBLES”, had been released in 2004. So, did Wanda set the events of “All-New Halloween Spooktacular” in the 1990s? Or did she skip a decade and set it the 2000s? Inquiring minds want to know. Regardless, this was an obvious blooper that no one bothered to comment on. I would bet that one person or more will come up with an excuse for this obvious blooper.
Do not get me wrong. I enjoyed “WANDAVISION”. But there were aspects of it that I found frustrating. I believe the story, which basically strikes me as a character study, could have been more effectively told via a movie, instead of a nine-episode series. I found the television sitcom formats distracting and unnecessary. And I have some issues regarding the Agatha Harkness character and an obvious blooper from the series’ sixth episode. But I must admit that “WANDAVISION” has proven to be among the better MCU productions from the past few years.
Below is my ranking of the episodes “THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT”, Netflix’s Emmy winning 2020 adaptation of Walter Nevis’ 1983 novel. Written and directed by Scott Frank, the miniseries starred Emmy nominee Anya Taylor-Joy:
RANKING OF “THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT” (2020) EPISODES
1. (1.04) “Middle Game” – While competing at an international tournament in Mexico City, chess prodigy Beth Harmon meets the intimidating Soviet champion, Vasily Borgov. Meanwhile, her adopted mother Alma Wheatley cozies up with a pen pal.
2. (1.07) “End Game” – In the series finale, a visit from Jolene, her old childhood friend from the orphanage, forces Beth to reckon with her past and rethink her priorities. With Jolene’s help, she is able to compete in the Moscow Invitational.
3. (1.02) “Exchanges” – Alma and her husband Allston Wheatley adopts Beth and draws her into a new life in suburbia Lexington, Kentucky. The teenage Beth studies her high school classmates and hatches a plan to enter a local chess tournament.
4. (1.03) “Doubled Pawns” – Beth travels to Cincinnati with Alma and wins the big prize at the chess tournament. While competing at the U.S. Open in Las Vegas, Beth meets the current U.S. chess champion, Benny Watts.
5. (1.06) “Adjournment” – After training with Benny in New York, Beth heads to Paris for her rematch with Borgov. But a wild night sends her into a self-destructive spiral.
6. (1.01) “Openings” – In the series premiere, nine-year-old Beth is sent to an orphanage following her mother’s death. She develops an uncanny knack for chess and a growing dependence on the green tranquilizers given to the children.
7. (1.05) “Fork” – Shaken by a recent tragedy, Beth returns home to Kentucky. She reconnects with former opponent Harry Beltik, who offers to help sharpen her game ahead of the U.S. Championship.
Below is a list of my favorite episodes from Season Two of the Amazon Prime series, “THE MARVELOUS MRS. MAISEL”. Created by Amy Sherman-Palladino, the series stars Rachel Brosnahan as Miriam “Midge” Maisel:
“THE MARVELOUS MRS. MAISEL” SEASON TWO (2018) EPISODE RANKING
1. (2.04) “We’re Going to the Catskills!” – Burgeoning comedienne Midge Maisel and her parents, Abe and Rose Weissman, head for Steiner Mountain Resort, the Catskills resort where they vacation every year for two months.
2. (2.08) “Vote for Kennedy, Vote for Kennedy” – Agent Susie Myerson lands Midge her first gig on television marathon. Their victory is short-lived when they realize Midge is being punished for her past with a late slot. Abe is increasingly unhappy in his dream job at Bell Labs, while Midge’s soon-to-be ex-husband Joel Maisel continues to drown in work during late nights at Maisel and Roth.
3. (2.05) “Midnight at the Concord” – Midge rushes back to New York City when her employer B. Altman calls, needing a temporary fill-in at the cosmetics counter. She also begins dating Dr. Benjamin Ettenberg, whom she met at Steiners, despite her original misgivings. Abe discovers that she is a comedian, when he catches her act at another Catskills resort.
4. (2.08) “Someday” – Midge and Susie hit the road on a short comedy tour, traveling in a vintage Model A Ford that Susie “inherited” from her mother. Joel intervenes on Midge’s behalf when a club owner refuses to pay her.
5. (2.06) “Let’s Face the Music and Dance” – Tension between Midge and Abe increases following his discovery that she is a stand-up comedian. To make matters worse, Abe discovers that his son Noah Weissman secretly works for the CIA. Joel continues adjusting to renewed bachelorhood. Susie becomes overly immersed in her Steiner resort staff persona.
I just finished watching the Season One episode of “LEGENDS OF TOMORROW” called (1.09) “Left Behind”. I have a major issue with this episode and it deals with the character of Sara Lance aka White Canary.
This problem had originated with the previous episode, (1.09) “Night of the Hawk”. In that episode, the Legends team went to a small town in Oregon 1958 to investigate a series of murders tied to Season One’s major antagonist, Vandal Savage. They discover that Savage was using an Nth metal meteorite – the same material that transformed Kendra Sanders aka Hawkgirl and Carter Hall aka Hawkman into meta humans, and Savage into an immortal – to create humanoid bird-like creatures. The team managed to create a serum to cure those victims of Savage’s experiment. Unfortunately, before all of them could leave 1958; Mick Rory aka Heatwave had arrived to attack the ship. Mick, who had ended up in the clutches of the Time Masters, had been brainwashed into serving the latter group in order to hunt down the Legends’ leader, Rip Hunter for attempting to use time travel to save his murdered family. Mick’s attack forced most of the team to leave Dr. Ray Palmer aka the Atom, Kendra and Sara behind in 1958. They remained stranded in time for two years.
So what happened? During the years between 1958 and 1960, Ray and Kendra continued their pose as a college professor and his wife. And what did Sara Lance do? Instead of remaining in close proximity with Ray and Kendra, she had decided to return to the Himalayas and Nanda Parbat in order to resume her association with the League of Assassins and her role as an assassin. Sara did not suffer from amnesia or anything like that. When the Legends – along with Ray and Kendra – traveled to Nanda Parbat, they assumed that she needed to be rescue. But Sara was not suffering from amnesia. She immediately recognized the other Legends and turned them over to her leader, Ra’s al Ghul, as trespassers to be executed. Rip invoked the trial-by-combat ritual to save the team and named Kendra as their champion. Sara was named as the League’s champion. Just as Kendra was able to get to Sara, Mick arrived as Chronos and the team was forced to capture him with Ra’s permission. He allowed them to leave, with Mick as their prisoner. Sara, on the other hand, did not become a prisoner. Dr. Martin Stein aka Firestorm had a ready-made excuse for her.
It occurred to me that the writers really went out of their to give Sara Lance an excuse for betraying the other Legends to the League of Assassins in “Left Behind”. The transcript written by Beth Schwartz and Grainne Godfree claimed that those two years Sara had spent with the League – between 1958 and 1960 – had led her to lose sight of her identity and all of the character developed she had acquired with Team Arrow and later, during her early months with the Legends.
I say bullshit to that. Sara had clear memories of the Legends when they arrived at Nanda Parbat in 1960. Also, Dr. Stein’s explanation only gave her an “excuse” for her decision to betray the team to Ra’s al Ghul. Stein’s words did not excuse or explain what happened back in 1958. No one bothered to question why Sara’s first instinct after getting stranded in 1958 was to rejoin the League of Assassins. “Left Behind” revealed a montage of Ray and Kendra settling down in that Oregon town and her, getting bored in their apartment. You mean to say, Sara never considered going back to school? After all, she was roughly 19 or 20 years old when she and Oliver Queen were shipwrecked on Lian Yu following the sinking of the Queen’s Gambit in “ARROW”. Sara could have continued her college education. She certainly had the brains to continue this path. Instead, Sara took the easier path and resumed her role as an assassin for the League of Assassins – but only in a different period in time. And her second instinct was to betray the other Legends to the League, despite knowing who they were. Yet, the other Legends were very quick to forgive her for her actions, in compare to Mick Rory aka Chronos, thanks to Schwartz and Godfree’s transcript.
The hypocrisy of this whole scenario still strikes me as truly amazing after four years. I am not saying that the Legends should have also quickly forgiven Mick. Nor am I saying that they should have never forgiven him or Sara. But the Legends should not have quickly forgiven Sara either. They should have confronted her about her decision to betray them to Ra’s al Ghul. They should have been just as reluctant to forgive her as they were reluctant to forgive Mick. The handling of Sara Lance’s character in “Left Behind” was one of the few cases of bad writing I have ever encountered on “LEGENDS OF TOMORROW”.
Below is a list of my favorite episodes from Season One of the CBS All Access series, “WHY WOMEN KILL”. Created by Mark Cherry, the series starred Lucy Liu, Ginnifer Goodwin and Kirby Howell-Baptiste:
FAVORITE EPISODES OF “WHY WOMEN KILL” SEASON ONE (2019)
1. (1.09) “I Was Just Wondering What Makes Dames Like You So Deadly” – A surprising confrontation reveals a secret that shocks 1963 housewife Beth Ann Stanton to her core. In 1984, socialite Naomi Harte reacts with rage upon discovering her teenage son Tommy’s affair with fellow socialite Simone Grove. After being angrily rejected by her screenwriter husband Eli Cohen in 2019, attorney Taylor Harding uncovers the dark truth about former lover Jade’s past.
2. (1.06) “Practically Lethal in Every Way” – Beth Ann and her aerospace engineer husband Rob Stanton throw a housewarming party. Secrets come to light when Simone and her art dealer husband Karl Grove have dinner with the conservative future in-laws of Simone’s daughter Amy. Taylor begins to question her living arrangement with Eli and Jade.
3. (1.10) “Kill Me as if It Were the Last Time” – Beth Ann devises a plan for revenge against Rob for his infidelity and lies. As Karl’s health worsens, Simone’s commitment to their relationship is tested. With Jade allegedly out of the picture, Taylor and Eli are hopeful the past is far behind them.
4. (1.01) “Murder Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry” – Beth Ann learns of Rob’s affair with local waitress April Warner. Simone is blindsided by her her discovery that Karl is a closet homosexual. Taylor’s open marriage with Eli expands when she introduces Jade into the household.
5. (1.05) “There’s No Crying in Murder” – Beth Ann’s budding friendship with April leaves her feeling conflicted. Simone and Tommy get stuck in a precarious situation during one of their meetings. With Taylor out of town, Eli and Jade’s relationship enters new territory when she helps him with his script.
Below is an article about a dessert known as Gooey Butter Cake:
GOOEY BUTTER CAKE
The city of St. Louis, Missouri is known for the creation of several popular dishes and desserts. One of the latter is a dessert that was created nearly a century ago called the Gooey Butter Cake.
Gooey Butter Cake is a flat and dense cake made from wheat cake flour, butter, sugar and eggs. Upon completion, the dessert is usually dusted with powdered sugar. The cake usually stand at nearly an inch tall. And while sweet and rich, it also stood somewhat firm, and is able to be cut into pieces similarly to a brownie. Gooey butter cake is generally served as a type of coffee cake and not as a formal dessert cake. There are two distinct versions of the gooey butter – a traditional cake usually created by bakers and a version made from cream cheese and yellow cake mix. As far as I know, there are two origin versions of the Gooey Butter Cake.
In one version, a German-American baker in the St. Louis area named John Hoffman owned the bakery where the cake was originally created by accident. The story is there were two types of butter “smears” used in his bakery – a gooey butter and a deep butter. The gooey butter was used as an adhesive for pastries like Danish rolls and Stollens. The deep butter was used for deep butter coffee cakes. Hoffman had hired a new baker, who was supposed to make deep butter cakes. But the new baker got the butter smears mixed up. Hoffman did not catch the mistake until after the cakes came out of the proof box. Rather than throw them away, Hoffman went ahead and baked them. Hoffman had no choice. The baking mistake had occurred during the Great Depression, when baking ingredients supplies were low. The new cake sold so well that Hoffman kept baking and selling them and soon, so did the other bakers in the St. Louis area.
The second version of the Gooey Butter Cake’s creation also occurred during the 1930s in St. Louis. Another St. Louis baker named Fred Heimburger remembers that someone – he never named Hoffman – had accidentally created the Gooey Butter Cake during the Depression. According to Heimburger, the cake became a popular hit and local acquired taste. After serving in the Korean War, Heimburger worked as a baker at the old Doerring Bakery, where he learned his trade and learned how to make the Gooey Butter Cake. He liked the cake so much that he tried to promote it by presenting samples of the cake to bakers outside of St. Louis, when he traveled. These bakers liked the dessert, but they could not get their customers to purchase it, regarding it as looking like too much like a mistake, and “a flat gooey mess”. And so it remained as a regional favorite for many decades. Heimburger opened his own bakery in 1954 and his interpretation of the cake, along with the bakery, became a local institution.
There are other stories surrounding the cake’s creation, but none have been historically verified. The St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission includes a recipe for the cake on its website, calling it “one of St. Louis’ popular, quirky foods”. The Commission’s recipe for the cake includes yellow cake batter and cream cheese, unlike the original recipe. Gooey butter cake is also commonly known outside of the St. Louis area as “Ooey Gooey Butter Cake,” due to its popularization by TV celebrity and cooking show host, Paula Deen.
Crust 1 3/4 teaspoons active dry yeast 3 Tablespoons + 1/4 teaspoon granulated sugar 1/3 cup warm milk 6 Tablespoons butter – room temperature 1 large egg pinch of salt 1 3/4 cups all-purpose flour
Topping 3 Tablespoons light corn syrup 2 Tablespoons water 2 teaspoons vanilla extract 12 Tablespoons butter 1 1/3 cups granulated sugar pinch of salt 1 large egg 1 1/4 cups all-purpose flour
Preparation
Crust *In a small bowl combine yeast, 1/4 tsp sugar and warm milk. Set aside for 5 minutes. *In a stand mixer cream together the butter and 3 Tbsp of sugar until light and fluffy, about 3 minutes. *Add the yeast mixture, egg, salt and flour and mix on low until combined. *Increase speed and mix/knead for about 7 minutes, until the dough is smooth and has pulled away from the sides of the bowl. *Press the dough into an ungreased 9×13” baking dish. Cover with a towel or plastic wrap and let rise in a warm place until doubled, about 2 hours.
Topping *Whisk together light corn syrup, water and vanilla until combined. *In a separate bowl cream together the butter, sugar and salt until light and fluffy, about 5 minutes. *Add egg, scraping down the sides of the bowl. Add a little of the flour, alternating with adding the corn syrup mixture, until both are combined. *Preheat oven to 350 degrees F. *Drop large spoonfuls of topping all over the risen dough. Use a spatula to gently smooth it into an even layer. *Bake for 35-40 minutes or until the top has set and is golden brown. The center should still seem soft when it comes out of the oven. Allow to cool on a wire cooling rack to room temperature. *Serve sprinkled with powdered sugar. This cake is best enjoyed the day it is made.
I first wrote the following article when the “MAD MEN” Season Three episode, (3.04) “The Arrangement”, first aired back in September 2009:
“MAD MEN” RETROSPECT: FANS DISLIKE OF BETTY DRAPER
I am angry. After watching the latest “MAD MEN” episode – (3.04) “The Arrangement” – and reading numerous comments about it, I have become angry over fans’ reaction to the character of Betty Draper.
Ironically, I am not angry at Matt Weiner. But I am angry at many fans for their continuing misreading of Betty Draper’s character. I just read this article on the episode and now find myself wondering if the fans of this show have ever understood the character. As of this moment, I am beginning to doubt it very much. Much of the fans’ vitriol toward Betty seemed to stem from her “treatment” of her two children, Sally and Bobby.
Ever since the airing of the Season Two episode, (2.02) “Flight 1”, “MAD MEN” fans have been accusing Betty Draper (portrayed by January Jones) of being a poor mother. In this particular episode, they nitpicked over her complaint about Bobby’s lies about a drawing he had submitted in school. He had traced the drawing from another illustration and declared it as his own original work.
Matters became worse in (2.04) “Three Sundays” when Betty had demanded that Don punish Bobby for a series of infractions. After this episode had aired, many fans accused her of being a cold and abusive parent, especially since she had expressed anger at Don for refusing to discipline his son. To this day, I am shocked, not by Betty’s insistence upon disciplining her son, but by the fans’ reactions. Surely they realized that the episode was set in 1962? Before this decade and in the following two, parents had disciplined their children with spankings. Yet, fans had acted as if this was something rare and accused Betty of being an abusive mother.
In a later episode, (2.12) “The Mountain King”, Betty caught her daughter Sally smoking. She punished the girl by locking her in a closet for a few hours. Again, fans accused Betty of being abusive. They completely ignored the fact that Sally, a young girl under the age of 10, was smoking and focused upon Betty’s punishment. I find myself wondering how my parents would have reacted if they had caught me smoking. I suspect that they would have shown less restraint than Betty. Hell, I suspect I would also show less restraint. Betty eventually let Sally out of the closet and explained – somewhat – the situation between Don and herself (they were separated at the time). But the damage had been done. Betty was now a bad mother.
Finally, Season Three had premiered last month. And if the fans’ reaction to Betty had been hostile during certain episodes of Season Two, it became downright vitriolic during this season. In the season premiere, (3.01) “Out of Town”, fans complained about Betty’s curt dismissal of Bobby, as she and Don were prepared to discipline Sally for breaking into her father’s suitcase. They also complained of Betty’s desire to give birth to a second daughter, citing this as an example of her immaturity. They also accused her of being immature when she insisted that her ailing father, Gene Hofstadt, remain with the Drapers after his live-in girlfriend abandoned him. They claimed that Betty wanted to prevent her brother William from selling their father’s home and profiting from it. Again, they complained about Betty being curt to Sally, when she ordered the young girl to zip up the dress she wore at Roger Sterling’s garden party in (3.03) “My Old Kentucky Home”. But the fans’ hostility toward Betty hit an all time high for the first time, since “Three Sundays”, in this latest episode.
According to many hostile fans, Betty is guilty of the following in “The Arrangement”:
*Her refusal to discuss with Gene his plans to distribute his late wife’s furs to herself and her sister-in-law, which many saw as a sign of her immaturity.
*A few fans had accused her of closing the door on Sally, after the police officer had arrived with news of Gene’s death. Of course, this was untrue.
*Her dismissal of Sally from the kitchen, after the latter ranted at the adult Drapers and Betty’s brother William, over their “failure” to grieve over Gene’s death.
*Her failure to comfort Sally over Gene’s death.
Betty’s refusal to discuss Gene’s plans to distribute his late wife’s furs upon his death drew a great deal of critical fire. Personally, I do not understand why. Her refusal to discuss such matters seemed reasonable to me. Why would any grown child want to discuss a parent’s impending death, like it was part of a business discussion? That strikes me as morbid and too emotional for anyone to bear. Especially if that particular person was in the last trimester of her pregnancy. In one of his more lucid moments, Gene could have written down his wishes regarding inheritance and other arrangements in a signed letter. Instead, he decided to openly discuss the matter with Betty, who obviously found the subject disturbing. And I have a question. Why on earth did he wait so long to distribute his late wife’s furs? She had been dead for over three years.
Many fans pointed out that Gene’s disappointment in Betty was a clear indication of her shallow and immature nature. His main complaints seemed to center around her failure to become a professional, like her mother used to be (Ruth Hofstadt had been an engineer back in the 1920s); and her marriage to Don. Now, this man knew what kind of parent his wife used to be. There has never been any previous hint in past episodes that Gene and Ruth Hofstadt had encouraged Betty to acquire a profession. When she became a professional model, Mrs. Hofstadt called her a whore. And judging from Gene’s story about his wife’s efforts to reduce Betty’s weight, I suspect that he left his daughter solely in Ruth’s hands. As for Betty’s marriage to Don, had Gene become aware that his son-in-law had stolen someone else’s identity? Or was he simply disappointed that Betty had married a man from a working-class background who did not have any family? If Gene knew that Don was a phony, why has he never exposed the latter? And if Gene’s problem with Don had more to do with the younger man’s social background, then it would only lead me to believe that he may have been just as shallow as his daughter and just every other major character in the series – including the leading man.
Some fans have accused Betty of shutting the front door in young Sally’s face after learning about Gene’s death. Well, I have an easy response. The cop who had delivered the news about Gene was the one who had closed the door in Sally’s face, preventing her from following him and Betty into the house. And since I do not recall him locking the door, Sally could have easily went ahead and followed them inside.
We finally come to the one scene that caused a great deal of hostility from the fans – namely Betty’s dismissal of Sally, following the latter’s outbreak over her grandfather’s death. Many fans expressed outrage over Betty’s action, claiming it as another example of her cold attitude toward her children. The interesting thing about their reaction is that they were only willing to view the scene from Sally’s point-of-view. No one was willing to view it from Betty’s point-of-view, or anyone else. Very few seemed unwilling to consider that both Betty and her brother, William, were devastated from their father’s death. As far as I know, one person was able to understand both Betty and Sally’s point-of-views, due to her own personal experiences. William tried to hide his own grief through a mild joke and both Betty and Don had laughed. Sally, who had overheard the joke, had jumped to conclusions that none of them cared about Gene’s death. And because of this belief, she ranted against her parents and uncle. Upset and shaken by her daughter’s outburst, Betty ordered Sally to her room . . . before she began to cry. And instead of viewing the scene as another example of family conflict during a special occasion – a death in the family, in this case – many viewers saw this as another example of Betty Draper’s despicable nature. I even came across an article that failed to mention Betty’s grief over her father’s death.
What I cannot understand is why very few viewers failed to comment on Don’s actions. What exactly did he do? He laughed at William’s joke. He looked understandably stunned by Sally’s outburst. He mildly chastised Betty for eating one of the peaches found in Gene’s car, and she ignored him. Speaking of the peaches, many fans saw Betty’s consumption of one of them either as a sign of her immaturity . . . or some kind of malice toward Sally. Following William and Judy’s departure, Don comforted a grieving Betty inside their bedroom. And when she finally went to sleep, he peeked in on Sally. That is it. He hardly did anything to comfort Sally. And yet . . . I have not come across any criticism against his actions in this episode.
I wish I could explain why Betty has received the majority of criticism from the fans. She has become the Bobbie Barrett of Season Three – the female everyone loves to hate. Fans have yet to find this season’s Duck Phillips. But I suspect that it will not take them very long. Are fans so desperate to find a character to vilify every season that they are unwilling to examine the complexities of all characters? Why are they willing to excuse the flaws and mistakes of female characters like Peggy Olson and Joan Holloway Harris and dump all of their ire on the likes of Betty Draper? Is it because Peggy has managed to adhere to their ideals of the new feminist of the 1960s and 70? Or that they admire Joan’s sophistication, style and wit? Whatever.
Look . . . I realize that Betty Draper is not perfect. She is not the world’s greatest mother and at times, she can be rather immature and shallow. But you know what? None of the other characters are perfect. Don strikes me as an even worse parent than Betty. He seems obsessed with maintaining appearance. And he is a fraud. Despite her ambition and talent, Peggy strikes me as an immature woman who assumes facades and personas with more speed than her mentor. I still cannot fathom her reaction to that opening sequence of “BYE-BYE BIRDIE” in the episode, (3.02) “Love Among the Ruins”. Despite the strides he had gained during late Season Two, Pete Campbell failed to overcome his desire for approval . . . and he still acts like a prat when things do not go his way. Paul Kinsey is another poseur who is ashamed of his past as a middle-class or working-class New Jersey man; and of the fact that he had attended Princeton via a scholarship. As for Joan . . . I really do not know what to think of her. Why on earth would an intelligent and experienced woman of the world marry a man who had raped her? Why? I have asked this question on several blogs, message boards and forums. And instead of giving me an answer, fans either make excuses for Joan’s choice or gloss over it by expressing their anticipation for the day when she finally leaves her husband.
I realize that I cannot force or coerce fans to even like Betty. But I am finding it difficult to accept or embrace their view. I am beginning to suspect that fans have allowed their emotions and prejudices to get in the way of any possibility of a rational discussion on the series and its characters. And considering that the comments regarding Betty’s role in “The Arrangement” has managed to anger me, I realize I no longer can conduct a rational discussion, myself.
P.S. – The “MAD MEN” fandom’s hypocritical attitude toward Betty in compare to other characters failed to abate for a good number – probably not until the end.
Many people would be surprised to learn that not many of Agatha Christie’s novels featured another one of her famous literary sleuths, Miss Jane Marple. The latter served as the lead in at least twelve novels, in compare to the thirty-three novels that starred her other famous sleuth, Hercule Poirot. It is because of this limited number of novels that the producers of “AGATHA CHRISTIE’S MARPLE” featured adaptations of Christie novels in which she appeared in the television films, but not in the novels. One of them is “ORDEAL BY INNOCENCE”.
Based upon Christie’s 1958 novel, “ORDEAL BY INNOCENCE” opened with the murder of the Argyle family’s controlling matriarch, Rachel Argyle. Mrs. Argyle was a wealthy heiress who had adapted several children, due to her inability to have her own. She also proved to be a controlling – almost tyrannical – mother who managed to alienate her adoptive children and husband. It did not take the police very long to focus upon one suspect – the family’s black sheep, Jack “Jacko” Argyle. Apparently, the latter quarreled with the victim over money. Jacko claimed that he had been given a lift by a stranger, when Rachel was murdered. But said stranger never stepped up to give him an alibi and Jacko was hanged for the crime. Two years later found the Argyle family celebrating the family’s patriarch Leo Argyle to his secretary, Gwenda Vaughn. The latter had invited her former employer, Jane Marple, to attend the wedding. A day or two before wedding, a stranger named Dr. Arthur Calgary appeared at the family estate, claiming to be the stranger who had given Jacko a lift on the night of Rachel’s murder. Due to Dr. Calgary’s confession, the Argyle family and Gwenda found themselves under suspicion for murder.
As I have stated in other movie reviews, I never had a problem with changes in adaptations of novels and/or plays, as long as these changes worked. “ORDEAL BY INNOCENCE” featured a few changes. The biggest change featured in the inclusion of Jane Marple as the mystery’s main investigator. Arthur Calgary served in that role in the novel. The television film also featured the addition of a character that was not in the novel – Jacko’s fraternal twin Bobby Argyle. Another major change featured the film’s second murder victim. Screenwriter Stewart Harcourt switched the identity of the story’s second victim. And how did these changes work?
I have to be frank. The addition of Bobby Argyle to the story did not seemed to have much of an impact upon me. The character became the executor of his adopted mother’s will, which placed him in charge of her money and his siblings’ trust funds. The problem I had with his story arc is that audiences were left in the dark on whether he had lost their money when he committed fraud . . . or he simply lost his own money. As I had previously stated, Harcourt and director Moira Armstrong had switched the identity of the story’s second victim. I will not reveal the identities of both the old and new identities. But I must admit that the second victim’s death – at least in this television movie – added a rather sad and poignant touch to this adaptation. The last major change featured Jane Marple as the story’s major investigator. Arthur Calgary, the man who could have provided Jacko Argyle an alibi, was the main investigator in Christie’s novel. In this film, he was more or less regulated to the role of a secondary character. Ironically, this change did not diminish his role, for Calgary more or less served as Miss Marple’s eyes, ears and feet; while remained at the Argyle estate. And this meant several scenes that featured Calgary engaging in a good deal of investigations on Miss Marple’s behalf.
Despite these changes, “ORDEAL OF INNOCENCE” more or less retained the main narrative Christie’s story. More importantly, I thought both Harcourt’s screenplay and Armstrong’s direction did an excellent job in maintaining the story’s angst, poignancy and more importantly, irony. Thanks to the director and screenwriter, “ORDEAL BY INNOCENCE” conveyed how Rachel Argyle’s presence managed to cast a shadow upon her family. And how her absence lifted that shadow, until Dr. Calgary’s revelation about Jacko’s innocence. I was also impressed at how the television movie did an effective, yet subtle job in conveying the bigotry faced by the family’s only person of color – Christina “Tina” Argyle.
While watching “ORDEAL OF INNOCENCE”, it occurred to me that Christie’s tale would not have worked if it had not been for the cast’s exceptional performances. All of them, I believe, really knocked it out of the ballpark. Mind you, there were solid performances from supporting cast members like Reece Shearsmith, Andrea Lowe, Camille Coduri, Pippa Haywood, and James Hurran. But I must confess that I was really impressed by those who portrayed members of the Argyle household. Burn Gorman radiated a mixture of charm and slime as the doomed Jacko Argyle. Richard Armitage was equally memorable as the avaricious and bitter ex-R.A.F. pilot who had married into the Argyle family, Philip Durrant. Singer Lisa Stansfield gave a subtle performance as Philip’s emotional, yet reserved wife Mary Argyle Durant, blinded by intense love for her husband. I enjoyed Bryan Dick’s portrayal of the volatile Micky Argyle, but there were moments when he threatened to be over-the-top. Gugu Mbatha-Raw, on the other hand, gave a performance that matched Stansfield’s subtlety as the blunt Tina Argyle, who hid her resentment of the racism she faced behind a sardonic mask. Stephanie Leonidas gave an effectively tense performance as the family’s youngest member, Hester Argyle, struggling to face her past involvement with brother-in-law Philip. And the always reliable Tom Riley did an excellent job with his portrayal of morally questionable Bobby Argyle.
But the performances that really impressed me came from the cast’s more veteran performers. Geraldine McEwan was marvelous as always in conveying the quiet intelligence of Miss Jane Marple. Despite being on the screen for only a few minutes, Jane Seymour really knocked it out of the park and domineering and sharp-tongued Rachel Argyle. She made it easy to see how the character managed to cast a shadow over the Argyle family. Julian Rhind-Tutt struck me as both entertaining and effective as the scholarly Dr. Arthur Calgary, who gave Jacko Argyle his alibi two years too late. What I found impressive about Rhind-Tutt’s performance is that he managed to convey his character’s intelligence and strength behind the nebbish personality. Alison Steadman’s portrayal of the Argyle’s judgmental housekeeper struck me as both subtle and frightening – especially in her stubborn belief that Gwenda Vaughn was Rachel’s killer. Denis Lawson has my vote for the best performance in “ORDEAL OF INNOCENCE”. There . . . I said it. And I stand by this. Lawson did a brilliant job in conveying the weak and suggestible personality of Leo Argyle. There were moments when I could not decide whether I liked him or despised him. It is not every day one comes across a fictional character brimming with quiet charm and unreliability.
It has been years since I saw the 1984 television adaptation of Christie’s 1958 novel. So, I have no memories of it. And I have seen the recent 2018 television adaptation. But I must be honest. I really enjoyed this 2007 adaptation. Yes, it has a few flaws. But I really believe that it did a superb job in conveying the poignant and ironic aspects of the novel. And I have director Moira Armstrong, screenwriter Stewart Harcourt and a superb cast led by Geraldine McEwan to thank.
The reactions to the Season Seven “MAD MEN” episode, (7.03) “Field Trip” had left me feeling a little exhausted . . . and somewhat annoyed. After reading comments on various blogs, I began to wonder if fans of the show had really harbored an enlightened attitude when it came to the major female characters. To this day, I remain a little perturbed by the attitude toward Joan Harris, Peggy Olson and Betty Francis I have encountered in other articles.
The fan reaction to Don Draper’s return to Sterling, Cooper & Partners, after he was asked to go on “leave” in the Season Six finale, (6.13) “In Care Of”, had left me shaking my head. In another Season Six episode called (6.06) “For Immediate Release”, Don had really pissed off Joan, when he got rid of the Jaguar account that had a great impact upon her career. When I first saw the episode, I understood why Joan had been upset. Don had rendered her actions in (5.11) “The Other Woman” – namely sleeping with a Jaguar salesman in order to gain the account for the firm – a waste of her time. Don, who had failed to prevent her from sleeping with Jaguar salesman, tried to become her knight in shining armor again, when he got rid of the Jaguar account. Not only did he rendered Joan’s actions useless, his decision ruined Joan, Pete Campbell and Bert Campbell’s attempt to make the company public. And some of his other actions back in Season Six caused a good deal of upheaval for the firm, which included his emotional outburst about his lurid childhood during a meeting with Hershey’s executives. His Season Six actions, along with her anger over the Jaguar account loss, made Joan wary about his return. But I noticed that some viewers – especially many male fans and critics – seemed hostile toward her reaction to Don. Many had expressed this belief that she should have been grateful to Don for getting rid of the Jaguar account and the presence of salesman Herb Rennet. They had failed to understand Joan’s anger or did not want to understand. And after this episode aired, they expressed either hostility or confusion over her reluctance to be thrilled over Don’s return.
I also suspect that many had believed Peggy Olson should have been eternally grateful to Don for taking her out of the secretarial pool and making her a copywriter in the Season One episode, (1.13) “The Wheel”. They also wanted Peggy to be grateful for giving her emotional support after she had given birth to hers and Pete Campbell’s love child. But once Peggy became a part of Don’s creative team, he not only began to take her for granted, but also subject her to some harsh belittling – especially when she asked for a raise. These same fans wanted Peggy to forget the crap that Don had subjected upon her from Seasons Three to Five. They wanted to forget that Peggy had a good reason to finally put Don behind her, when she resigned from the firm in “The Other Woman”. They also wanted Peggy to forget Don’s actions in Season Six, regarding her relationship with another partner of the firm, Ted Chaough. I am not saying there was nothing wrong with Peggy’s affair with Ted. There was. But Don’s manner in delivering a blow to their relationship in (6.12) “The Quality of Mercy” came off as ham-fisted and manipulative . . . and angered Peggy in the process. By the time “Field Trip” aired, she was still angry at Don. And she was also angry at Ted for finally ending their affair. But due to their own reasons, fans wanted Peggy to . . . or demanded that she forget about all of the crap that Don had put her through during the past years and welcome him back with open arms. Why? Was it really that important for Don to resume his role as Peggy’s “Alpha Male”? These same fans had also demand that Peggy return to the woman she used to be during Seasons One to Four or Five.
Following his return to Sterling, Cooper & Partners, many fans were chomping at the bit over the idea of Don eventually resuming his role as the “Alpha Male” in the advertising workplace. This desire was so strong that they were willing to pay lip service to Don’s offhand dismissal of his former secretary and the firm’s new Office Manager, Dawn Chambers, after all she had done for him during his leave. Regardless of Don’s mistakes, it seemed more important to many that he resume his place back on top in the form of a “new and improved” Don. Fans were so convinced that Don would stick to his new and improved path that all of the females he had interacted with in “Field Trip” – Joan, Peggy, Dawn and second wife Megan Draper – ended up being bashed by the fans, because they had failed to swoon at his feet. In the case of Dawn, no one had seemed to care about Don’s dismal treatment of her. They were too busy celebrating the potential return of “Alpha Male” Don Draper.
But the character I really felt sorry for was Betty Francis, Don’s first wife. I felt sorry for her because as a character, she had always seemed to be in a conundrum, as far as fans were concerned. Betty had been taught and expected to be a perfect mother and wife. This is her biggest demon. Fans of the show have criticized her for trying to be perfect. Yet, at the same, they continued to demand that she be perfect mother. This certainly happened when Betty coldly reacted to her discovery that son Bobby had exchanged the lunch she made for him for a bag of candy in “Field Trip”. This was the latest incident in which fans continued to demand that Betty behave more like indulgent Mildred Pierce, instead of a real parent. The only time Don has ever been seriously criticized as a parent, was when daughter Sally caught him with his neighbor Sylvia Rosen and he made an attempt to brush aside what she saw with a lie in Season Six’s (6.11) “Favors”. As far as many fans were concerned, Betty had to be a mother willing to coddle her children, despite their transgressions – in order to be consistently loved by the fans. I have been on the receiving end of a cold reaction like Bobby from my parents when I had made a mistake. It did not damage my psyche. And I have reacted to others, like Betty did. I am a human being and I am capable of mistakes. But, due to her mistakes, Betty was the only character – other than Pete – who was consistently labeled as a “child”, when she made a mistake. But when she had to discipline her children, she was accused of being cold. On the other hand, other characters in the series had also been consistently childish since the first season. But I sometimes wonder if fans were unable to make up their minds on what Betty should have been. They criticized both her lack of maternal perfection (which does not exist in real life, by the way) . . . and at the same time, criticized her attempts at perfection. To this day, I still feel sorry for her, because due to the rules of our still patriarchal society – both in the series and in real life – Betty was never been able to win. Even when she had expressed doubt about her skills as a mother, which she certainly did by the end of “Field Trip”.
Poor Betty will never be accepted as the complex person that she was, because of this demand that she had to be the perfect mother. Many had seemed incapable of understanding Joan’s wariness at Don’s return to the firm. And many wanted Peggy to disregard her past anger at Don and his past behavior in order for her to be eternally grateful to him . . . again. Meanwhile, many fans literally anticipated for Don to be his old self again – the creative “Alpha Male” from past seasons. Like I said – we truly live in a paternalistic society.
Ladylavinia1932's Blog 