1970s Costumes in Movies and Television

2b9cbf247cfe4929b8967b5339ec373a

Below are images of fashion during the 1970s, found in movies and television productions over the years:

1970s COSTUMES IN MOVIES AND TELEVISION

image

“Apollo 13″ (1995)

image

“Casino” (1995)

image

“Austin Powers in Goldmember” (2002)

image

“Dreamgirls” (2006)

image

“Rush” (2013)

image

“American Hustle” (2013)

image

“X-Men: Days of Future Past” (2014)

image

“The Astronaut Wives Club” (2015)

“ORDEAL BY INNOCENCE” (2007) Review

p8381211_e_v4_aa.jpg

“ORDEAL BY INNOCENCE” (2007) Review

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.

“MAD MEN” RETROSPECT: “It’s Hard Being a Woman”

article-0-1D69842800000578-762_634x411

“MAD MEN” RETROSPECT: “IT’S HARD BEING A WOMAN”

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.

Gooey Butter Cake

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.

Below is a recipe for the classic Gooey Butter Cake from the Taste Better From Scratch website:

Gooey Butter Cake

Ingredients:

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.

Favorite Episodes of “STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE” Season Four (1995-1996)

Below is a list of my favorite episodes from Season Four of “STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE”. Created by Rick Berman and Michael Piller; the series starred Avery Brooks as Captain Benjamin Sisko:

 

FAVORITE EPISODES OF “STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE” SEASON FOUR (1995-1996)

 

1. (4.08) “Little Green Men” – Deep Space Nine’s bar owner Quark and his brother Rom take the latter’s son Nog to Starfleet Academy on Earth. But a malfunction with the ship sends the crew back in time, to 1947 Roswell, New Mexico. Megan Gallagher, Charles Napier and Conor O’Farrell guest starred.

 

 

2. (4.10) “Our Man Bashir” – When a transporter emergency turns the station’s command crew into holosuite characters in Dr. Julian Bashir’s James Bond program, the situation takes on a deadly reality. Ken Marshall guest-starred.

 

 

3. (4.03) “The Visitor” – Sometime in the future, an aspiring writer named Melanie, wants to know why an older Jake Sisko stopped writing at age 40. Jake reveals how his father, Captain Benjamin Sisko, had died in an accident and then suddenly reappeared. Tony Todd guest-starred.

 

 

4. (4.20) “For the Cause” – Sisko face betrayal when evidence surfaces that his girlfriend Kasidy Yates is smuggling for the Maquis. Meanwhile, former spy/tailor Garak makes acquaintance with Gul Dukat’s daughter, Ziyal. Penny Johnson and Ken Marshall guest starred.

 

 

5. (4.20) “Shattered Mirror” – When the Mirror Universe counterpart of Sisko’s deceased wife, Jennifer Sisko, lures Jake to the other side; Sisko must follow and help the Terran resistance against the Alliance forces. Felecia M. Bell guest starred.

 

 

Honorable Mention: (4.26) “Broken Link” – Station security chief Odo is suddenly struck by illness and he is barely able to hold shape. Bashir and Odo see no other alternative than going to the Founders. Salome Jens guest starred.

“FEUD” Season One – “Bette and Joan” (2017) Episode Ranking

Below is my ranking of the episodes from Season One (and the only season so far) of the F/X series called “FEUD”. Titled “Bette and Joan” and created by Ryan Murphy, the season starred Jessica Lange and Susan Sarandon:

 

“FEUD” SEASON ONE – “BETTE AND JOAN” (2017) EPISODE RANKING

 

1. (1.05) “And the Winner Is… (The Oscars of 1963)” – The fallout from the Oscar nominations for “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?” leads to underhanded tactics from Joan Crawford, while co-star Bette Davis relishes the opportunity to break a record.

 

 

2. (1.02) “The Other Woman” – With production on “Baby Jane?” underway, Bette and Joan form an alliance, but outside forces in the form of Warner Brothers studio chief Jack Warner, director Robert Aldrich and an unsuspecting bit player conspire against them.

 

 

3. (1.07) “Abandoned!” – Following the beginning of production for “Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte”, the feud between Bette and Joan intensifies. Meanwhile, Bette reveals her vulnerabilities to Aldrich during their affair.

 

 

4. (1.03) “Mommie Dearest” – The “Baby Jane” production reaches its climax, while Bette and Joan clash over every last detail. And both actresses face private struggles.

 

 

5. (1.01) “Pilot” – Cast aside by Hollywood and struggling to maintain their film careers, Bette and Joan sign up for “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?” before they commence upon a feud.

 

 

6. (1.06) “Hagsploitation” – Hungry for another hit after “Baby Jane?”, Jack Warner pressures Aldrich into bringing the original team back together for a second project – “Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte”. Meanwhile, Joan receives a surprising blackmail threat from her brother.

 

 

7. (1.08) “You Mean All This Time We Could Have Been Friends?” – In this finale, Joan accepts a leading role on a new film (her last one), despite her deteriorating health. Faced with a possible new rival, Bette reflects on her misplaced feud with Joan.

 

 

8. (1.04) “More or Less” – When “Baby Jane?” opens in movie theaters, Bette and Joan face uncertain prospects, Aldrich deals with his own personal and professional difficulties, and his assistant Pauline Jameson makes a surprising offer.

 

Favorite Episodes of “AGATHA CHRISTIE’S MISS MARPLE” (1984-1992)

Below is a list of my favorite episodes from the 1984-1992 BBC series, “AGATHA CHRISTIE’S MISS MARPLE”. The series starred Joan Hickson as Miss Jane Marple:

 

FAVORITE EPISODES OF “AGATHA CHRISTIE’S MISS MARPLE” (1984-1992)

 

1. “A Murder Is Announced” (1985) – An unusual announcement in the newspaper leads the curious inhabitants of Chipping Cleghorn to Letitia Blacklock’s home, where they become witnesses to a murder.

 

 

2. “Sleeping Murder” (1987) – When a young bride moves into a small town villa, long repressed childhood memories of witnessing a murder come to the surface. She and her husband seeks Miss Jane Marple’s help in solving the murder.

 

 

3. “A Caribbean Mystery” (1989) – While on vacation at a West Indian resort hotel, Miss Marple correctly suspects that the apparently natural death of a retired British major is actually the work of a murderer planning yet another killing.

 

 

4. “A Pocket Full of Rye” (1985) – When a handful of grain is found in the pocket of a murdered businessman, Miss Marple seeks a murderer with a penchant for nursery rhymes.

 

 

5. “The Mirror Crack’d from Side to Side” (1992) – At a reception for a fading film star shooting a screen comeback at Miss Marple’s home village of St. Mary’s Mead, a gushing fan is poisoned by a drink meant for the actress.

“ONCE UPON A TIME . . . IN HOLLYWOOD” (2019) Review

“ONCE UPON A TIME . . . IN HOLLYWOOD” (2019) Review

When I had first learned that producer-director Quentin Tarantino had plans to make a movie about “Old Hollywood”, I assumed that it would be set during the early 20th century – at least sometime between the 1920s and the 1940s. I had no idea that the movie would be set near the end of the 1960s.

The reason behind my initial assumption was that I have never considered the 1960s decade to be a part of . . . “Old Hollywood”. For me, that era in film history had ended by the late 1950s. I eventually learned that a good number of movie stars – Rock Hudson being one of them – had retained contracts with the industries movie studios even during the Sixties. Even those who had transferred from movie to television productions. Then . . . I heard that the movie would be about the LaBianca-Tate Murders from August 1969. Familiar with the level of violence featured in past Tarantino movies, I was pretty determined to avoid this movie. I am used to the violence featured in the director’s past movies. But I really could not see myself sitting in a movie theater and watching a re-creation of the murder of actress Sharon Tate, Hollywood hairdresser Jay Sebring and a few other friends at the hands of Charles Manson’s Family. I had seen the 1976 movie, “HELTER SKELTER” when I was a kid. Once was enough and that was only a two-part television movie. But when I had eventually learned that “ONCE UPON A TIME . . . IN HOLLYWOOD” was a revisionist movie like his 2009 film, “INGLORIOUS BASTERDS”, I decided to give it a chance.

“ONCE UPON A TIME . . . IN HOLLYWOOD” covered a six month period near the end of the 1960s – from February to August 1969. To be honest, the movie is divided into two time periods. Two-thirds of the movie is set during a 36-hour period in early Februrary 1969. The last third of the film is set during the afternoon and evening hours of August 8-9, 1969. The movie is about the experiences of two men – Hollywood television actor Rick Dalton and his friend/stunt man/chauffeur Cliff Booth. Following the cancellation of his television series, “Bounty Law”, Rick had been making guest appearances in various television shows as villains. Casting agent Marvin Schwarz warns Rick that the longer he continues appearing in television episodes as the villain, his career will eventually die and no one will remember him from “Bounty Law”. The agent suggests that Rick consider going to Europe to star in an Italian western or two. And Cliff find his career as a Hollywood stuntman over due to rumors that he may have killed his wife and an altercation with Bruce Lee on the set of “THE GREEN HORNET”. Only his job as Rick’s chauffeur/handyman has allowed Cliff to earn any cash, thanks to the actor’s alcoholism and collection of DUIs that led to the removal his driver’s license.

Rick has also acquired new neighbors – Polish-born director Roman Polanski and his actress wife Sharon Tate – both with Hollywood careers that seemed to be on the upswing. The couple had just began leasing the home of music producer Terry Melcher. Rick has dreams of befriending them as a means to revive his career. Meanwhile, he contemplates accepting Marvin’s suggestion, while he begins work on his current job – a guest appearance as another villain in the pilot episode of the TV western called “LANCER”. As for Cliff, he becomes acquainted with a beautiful hitchhiker named Pussycat. She turns out to be a member of the Manson Family, who are staying at Spahn Ranch, where he and Rick used to film “Bounty Law”. Cliff’s encounter with the ranch’s owner, the blind and aging George Spahn and members of the Manson Family foreshadows a later encounter on that infamous night, six months later.

While contemplating his career, I noticed all of the four movies made by Quentin Tarantino in the past ten years were period pieces. All of them . . . from “INGLORIOUS BASTERDS” to this current film, “ONCE UPON A TIME . . . IN HOLLYWOOD”. I would never consider the other three films as nostalgic, but a part of me cannot help but wonder if I could say the same about this latest one. The pacing for “ONCE UPON A TIME . . . IN HOLLYWOOD” struck me as a lot more detailed, relaxed and reflective than any of his previous movies. It almost seemed as if Tarantino was paying some kind of loving tribute to the end of the old Hollywood studio system. For me, this seemed like both a good thing and a bad one.

Tarantino always had a reputation for scenes that featured long stretches of dialogue or detailed action sequences. And yes, the pacing in his films – with the exception of scenes featuring action or revelations of previous mysteries – can be a tad slow upon first viewing. But “ONCE UPON A TIME . . . IN HOLLYWOOD” marked the first time I can recall such a small amount of violence or action. Tarantino seemed more evoking a sense of the past than in any other of his period films. For “ONCE UPON A TIME . . . IN HOLLYWOOD”, it was a good thing for the film managed to permeate the end of the 1960s in Los Angeles and the Hollywood Studio system thanks to Tarantino’s direction, Barbara Ling’s superb production designs, Arianne Phillips’ costume designs and the art direction led by Richard L. Johnson.

On the other hand, Tarantino’s in-depth peek into Los Angeles 1969 also had a negative impact . . . a minor one, if I must be honest. This slow exploration also included a look into actress Sharon Tate’s life . . . at least in the first two-thirds of the film. Basically, the movie reflected a peek into the daily life of the actress – attending a party at Hugh Hefner’s Playboy mansion, visiting a bookstore in the Westwood Village, and watching her latest film (“THE WRECKING CREW”) at the theater. I realize that Tarantino was trying to pay some kind of homage to Tate, but I found this . . . homage rather dragged the film’s pacing.

There were two other aspects of “ONCE UPON A TIME . . . IN HOLLYWOOD” that I found troubling. One brief scene early in the film featured an appearance by Charles Manson at the Polanski-Tate home, searching for music producer Terry Melcher, who owned it. In real life, Manson had visited the house on several occasions, searching for the music producer. These visits had led to the Tate-LaBianca murders. But the movie only featured one visit by Manson and it happened early in the film . . . six months before the night of August 8-9. I believe this is where Tarantino’s narrative structure for the film had failed. I belief the film’s second act, which is set during that very night, should have began at least a few days or a week or two earlier, allowing one or two more visits by Manson to 10050 Cielo Drive and setting up his plan to send some of his followers to kill its inhabitants.

And there was Cliff’s infamous fight with Bruce Lee that outraged a good number of critics and moviegoers and led them to accuse Tarantino of disrespct toward the actor/martial artist and racism. Many took umbrage at Tarantino’s portrayal of Lee as a braggadocio who needed to be taken down by a white man in a fight – namely Cliff. If I must honest, I felt the same. I still do . . . somewhat. I recently discovered that one of the production companies backing the film is Bona Film Group, a Chinese organization controlled by Yu Dong and Jeffrey Chan. As producers and co-financiers of the film, why did Bona Film Group fail to protest against the Booth-Lee encounter? Did the company’s executives have a personal grudge against the late martial artist? Was this lack of protest due to some unpopularity of Lee in mainland China? Or did the production company simply not cared? One minor nitpick . . . actor Mike Moh’s hairstyle for Lee was a bit too long for that 1966 or 1967 flashback. Personally, I think Tarantino should have never added that scene in the first place. It was not that relevant to the film’s overall narrative. Or he could have easily allowed Cliff to have a fight with a fictional character, instead of Lee . . . anything to avoid the unnecessary controversy that followed.

Despite these flaws, I really enjoyed “ONCE UPON A TIME . . . IN HOLLYWOOD”. As I had stated earlier, I really enjoyed the film’s atmospheric setting of the Hollywood community at the end of the 1960s. The movie also did an excellent job in conveying Tarantino’s talent for creating a narrative structure for his films. The director allowed moviegoers a peak into a Hollywood industry that was in the process of change from the old studio system to the industry’s American New Wave era between the mid-1960s and the early 1980s. This transistion was conveyed in the film not only marked by Rick Dalton’s anxiety over his foundering career, but also capped by the Manson Family’s attack upon Cielo Drive. However, Rick was not the only one anxious about his future. Cliff Booth faced professional oblivion following Rick’s marriage to an Italian actress in the film’s second half. Despite their close relationship, Rick made it obvious that he could not afford to keep Cliff in his employ. The night of August 8-9 was supposed to be his last night in Rick’s employ. What is also interesting about this film is that like “THE HATEFUL EIGHT”, it ended on an ambiguous note. Was Rick’s career ever salvaged? Also, many have forgotten that on the following evening, Charles Manson himself led a second attack upon Leno and Rosemary LaBianca in Los Angeles’ Los Feliz neighborhood. Did the revisionist ending of “ONCE UPON A TIME . . . IN HOLLYWOOD” prevent these murders? I wonder.

The movie also featured many sequences that I found very enjoyable to watch. They also help set up and maintain the film’s narrative. These scenes included Marvin Schwarz’s frank assessment of Rick’s career, Polanski and Tate’s appearance at a Playboy Mansion party, Rick’s delightful interactions with an eight year-old actress named Trudi Fraser on the “LANCER” set that helped him turn in a memorable performance, Rick’s breakdown in a trailer after flubbing his lines, and Cliff’s meeting with Pussycat. But there were two scenes that really stood out for me. One of those scenes were Cliff’s encounter with the Manson family at Spahn’s Ranch seemed like Tarantino’s take on what happened between “the family” and a stuntman named Donald Shea in late August 1969. I thought Tarantino did a superb job with this scene. It was well-paced, filled with a great deal of tension.

I can say the same about the movie’s last sequence that featured the Manson Family’s attack upon Cielo Drive during the night of August 8-9. This is where Tarantino’ use of historical revision came into play. The director-writer used Rick’s constant complaints about “hippies”, his celebrity as a former television star and Cliff’s previous encounter with the Manson Family to re-direct the latter’s attack from the Polanski-Tate household to the Dalton household. And what unfolded was chaotic, occasionally funny and yes, very scary. It truly was a well shot and well-acted sequence.

“ONCE UPON A TIME . . . IN HOLLYWOOD” featured a good deal of cameos – probably a lot more than any previous Tarantino film (I could be wrong, since I have not seen all of his films). Making solid cameos were Damian Lewis, Michael Madsen, Timothy Olyphant (as actor James Stacy), Luke Perry (as actor Wayne Maunder), Damon Herriman (as Charles Manson), Ramón Franco, Lena Durnham, Rumer Willis, Martin Kove, Clu Galagher, Rebecca Gayheart, Brenda Vaccaro, Scoot McNairy, Clifton Collins, Jr., James Remar, and Toni Basil. The movie also featured some very memorable supporting performances – especially from the likes of Al Pacino, who delightfully portrayed casting agent Marvin Schwarz; an entertaining Kurt Russell who not only portrayed stunt gaffer Randy Miller, but also served as the film’s narrator; Zoë Bell, who was equally entertaining as Randy’s stunt gaffer wife Janet; Mike Moh, who gave a colorful performance as Bruce Lee; Lorenza Izzo, as Rick’s wife Francesca Capucci; a rather frightening Dakota Fanning as Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, Manson family member; Austin Butler as the very intimidating Manson family member “Tex”, Maya Hawke as “Flower Child”; Nicholas Hammond as actor-director Sam Wanamaker; Rafał Zawierucha as Roman Polanski; Julia Butters as the delightful child actor Trudi Fraser; a very charming Emile Hirsch as Jay Sebring; the always entertaining Bruce Dern as George Spahn; Damian Lewis, who was surprisingly effective as a witty Steve McQueen; and Margaret Qualley, who was very memorable as Manson Family member “Pussycat”.

I will be the first admit that Tarantino made little use of Sharon Tate in this film. It was quite clear that her presence really served as a catalyst for Tarantino’s story and possibly a muse. But I cannot deny that Margot Robbie gave a very charming and ellubient performance as the late actress. Brad Pitt, on the other hand, gave a very subtle yet memorable performance as former stuntman Cliff Booth, whose career had seen better days. This was due to the mysterious circumstances behind the death of Cliff’s wife. Many believe he may have killed her and got away with the crime. And Pitt managed to reflect this ambiguity in his performance and in his eyes. There were times when it seemed there was a bit of a “cool superhero” element in the character that at times, made it a bit difficult for me to relate to him. But thanks to Pitt’s natural screen persona and a very subtle performance, I was able to do so in the end.

If I had to choose the most complex character in the entire movie, it would have to be former television star Rick Dalton. And I cannot deny that Leonardo DiCaprio did an exceptional job of conveying this character to the movie screen. Thanks to DiCaprio’s performance and Tarantino, Rick is such a conumdrum. One could label him as one of those actors from the late 1950s and early 1960s, who became television stars and later tried to make the transition to film. I have read many comments that Rick has a conservative outlook on his tastes and acting skills that will forever limit him from becoming a star in Hollywood’s New Age in films. This is very apparent in Rick’s pompadour hairstyle in the film’s first half, his occasional rants against hippies and his reluctant to adapt to the new Hollywood. And yet . . . Rick eventually concedes to Schwarz’s suggestion that he try Italian westerns, he changes his hairstyle and wardrobe to reflect the fashions of the late 1960s and early 1970s, and he seeks to make social connections with Polanski and Tate to further his career. Rick is also an alcoholic and might be bipolar. DiCaprio did an excellent job in conveying Rick’s emotional state that reflect these traits.

“ONCE UPON A TIME . . . IN HOLLYWOOD” is not my favorite Quentin Tarantino film, it has became my favorite film of 2019. I do not think it has a chance of winning any of the big prizes during the awards season of 2019-2020. I have a deep suspicion that the media and the Hollywood community is not as enamoured of it as I am. Which is okay . . . to each his or her own. But damn it, the movie was superb. I have heard rumors that Tarantino plans to retire from filmmaking. Personally, I think this is a mistake on his part. Perhaps he wants to end his career on a high note. And “ONCE UPON A TIME . . . IN HOLLYWOOD” is certainly a reflection of it, thanks to Tarantino’s direction, his screenplay, the movie’s production values and especially the cast led by Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt. But I hope that Tarantino continues to make movies.

 

“Loco Moco”

Below is an article about a dish known as Loco Moco:

 

“LOCO MOCO”

Of all of the dishes created in the United States, there are a handful of them that I have never heard of until recently. One of those dishes is a staple of Hawaii called Loco Moco. I have heard of several dishes that are popular or were created in Hawaii over the years, but Loco Moco is not one of them.

There are many variations of the Loco Moco dish. However, the traditional version consists of white rice, topped with a hamburger patty, a fried egg, and brown gravy. Variations may include chili, bacon, ham, Spam, kalua pork, Portuguese sausage, teriyaki beef, teriyaki chicken, mahi-mahi, shrimp, oysters, and other meats. And the dish is traditional served with a pasta or some variation of Asian noodles. To my surprise, I discover that Loco Moco has been featured on various shows that had once aired on the Travel Show – like Samantha Brown’s “Girl Meets Hawai’i”; along with “Man v. Food” and “Man Finds Food”, both hosted by celebrity Adam Richman.

The Loco Moco dish had originated at the Lincoln Grill restaurant in Hilo, Hawaii. In 1949, a group of teenagers from the local Lincoln Wreckers Sports Club had arrived at the restaurant, seeking something that differed from the usual sandwich that was also inexpensive, and could be quickly prepared. The customers asked propietors Richard and Nancy Inouye to put some rice in a bowl, a hamburger patty over the rice, and then top it with brown gravy. The Inouyes had added the egg later.

The teenagers named the dish Loco Moco after one of their members, George Okimoto, whose nickname was “Crazy”. George Takahashi, who was studying Spanish at Hilo High School, suggested using Loco, which is Spanish for crazy. The teenagers also tacked on “moco” which “rhymed with loco and sounded good”. Spanish-speakers would probably find the name odd, given that the two words would translate as “crazy snot” (moco is Spanish for “mucus”). The dish can now be found in a variety of restaurants all over Hilo and other parts of the Hawaiian Islands. However, the dish’s location cannot be found, since it the Lincoln Grill restaurant no longer exists.

Below is a recipe for the traditional Loco Moco dish at the ChiboHawaii.com website:

Loco Moco

Ingredients

2 cups rice
1 lb ground beef
1 egg
1⁄2 cup dry breadcrumbs
1 teaspoon Worcestershire sauce
5 (1 1/4 ounce) packet dry onion soup mix
1⁄8 teaspoon pepper
cooking spray
5 (1 1/4 ounce) packet dry onion soup mix
1 1⁄2 cups water
1⁄2 cup water (mixed with)
2 tablespoons flour
4 eggs
cooking spray
1⁄8 teaspoon pepper

Preparation

Step 1: Start the rice and cook as per directions on packaging

Step 2: Mix the patty ingredients together until it holds, creating 4 separate patties

Step 3: Spray a pan and fry patties until both sides are brown

Step 4: Add ½ a packet of onion soup mix and 1 and ½ cups of water

Step 5: Bring the mix to a boil and simmer for 20 minutes

Step 6: Remove the patties from the pan

Step 7: If more gravy is required, add the ½ packet of onion soup mix and 2 cups of water

Step 8: Combine two tablespoons of flour and ½ cup of water then whisk until thickened to a gravy

Step 9: Spray a pan and then cook the eggs sunny-side up

Step 10: Assemble the loco moco, first with the bottom layer of rice, then the patty and finally the egg on the top.

“GREENSHAW’S FOLLY” (2013) Review

“GREENSHAW’S FOLLY” (2013) Review

It must have been a chore for both the BBC and later, the ITV, to maintain a television series featuring novels about Miss Jane Marple, one of Agatha Christie’s most famous literary characters. I say “chore” because I was surprised to discover that the mystery novelist had only written a limited number of novels and short stories featuring the character.

As it turned out, Christie wrote twelve Jane Marple novels. Twelve. All of them have been adapted for television more than once between 1984 and 2013. Christie also wrote a lot more short stories featuring the sleuth, but only a handful have ever been adapted . . . and only in recent years. One of those adaptations is the 2013 television movie from “AGATHA CHRISTIE’S MARPLE” is “GREENSHAW’S FOLLY”.

“GREENSHAW’S FOLLY” is a loose adaptation of two Christie short stories – 1960’s “Greenshaw’s Folly” and 1932’s “The Thumb Mark of St. Peter”. Instead of revealing the plots of both stories, I will recap the plot for the 2013 television movie. “GREENSHAW’S FOLLY” begins with a woman named Louisa Oxley spiriting her young son Archie from an abusive husband. The pair arrives at Miss Jane Marple’s home in St. Mary’s Mead. To help them further, Miss Marple arranges for Louisa and Archie to stay at an estate called Greenshaw’s Folly, where the owner, an eccentric botanist named Katherine Greenshaw, hires Louisa to be her secretary. Louisa and Archie becomes part of a household that includes Mrs. Cresswell, the housekeeper; Nathaniel Fletcher, Miss Greenshaw’s actor/nephew; a house guest named Horace Bindler, who is a journalist claiming to be an architect, looking into the past of Miss Greenshaw’s father; the owner’s butler, whose name is Cracken; and a groundskeeper named Alfred Pollock. Nearby is a local priest named Father Brophy, who hopes to solicit money from Miss Greenshaw for the orphanage he manages. Also involved in the story is Cicely Beauclerk, one of Miss Marple’s elderly friends from St. Mary’s Mead, who had experienced a past trauma at the hands of Miss Greenshaw’s father years before.

Louisa and young Archie’s refuge is threatened when Cracken falls from a ladder and fatally cracks his head. His death is ruled by the police as accidental. However, Miss Marple, who has also been staying at Greenshaw’s Folly, begins to harbor suspicions when Mr. Binder mysteriously disappear. But when the estate’s owner, Miss Greenshaw, is brutally murdered, Miss Marple realizes that she has a full blown mystery on her hands.

What is there to say about “GREENSHAW’S FOLLY”? Although the television movie is based upon two Miss Marple short stories, the majority of the narrative seemed to be based upon the 1960 story – “Greenshaw’s Folly”. The other story, “The Thumb Mark of St. Peter”, had merely provided a foil for Louisa Oxley in the form of her abusive husband, and a “weapon” to be used in Miss Greenshaw’s murder. Although the narrative had started on a slow note, I must admit that it proved to be a very interesting tale about the Greenshaw family history and how many of the characters – aside from Louisa and Archie Oxley – had such a strong connection to it. Let me rephrase this. I thought the connection between the majority of the characters and the Greenshaw family worked. These connections include Nathaniel Fletcher’s blood connection to Miss Greenshaw; Mrs. Cresswell, Cracken and Alfred serving as Miss Greenshaw’s servants; Alfred’s past as a convict threatened to end his employment; Mr. Binder’s unexpected investigation into Miss Greenshaw’s past; and Father Brophy’s attempts to solicit money from Miss Greenshaw for his orphanage. What is more interesting is that Mr. Binder’s interest in the Greenshaw family past may have been threatening to the killer as well.

On the other hand, I had a problem with with subplot involving the past trauma that Miss Beauclerk had endured at the hands of the late Mr. Greenshaw. When you look at it, she had the strongest motive to kill Miss Greenshaw. It would be easy for her to scapegoat Miss Greenshaw for what the latter’s father had subjected her to as a child. But as the oldest suspect, it would have been nigh impossible for Beauclerk to carry out the murders. I realize that she could have recruited help from any of the other suspects. But . . . Miss Beauclerk’s age seemed like a minor problem in compare to a bigger one. There seemed to be something about her subplot that failed to resonate with me. In the Miss Beauclerk character, screenwriter Tim Whitnall had the strongest suspect for this story. And yet, I got the feeling that he was not particularly interested in her character or arc. Instead, it seemed as if the narrative ended up under utilizing the character . . . other than have her inadvertently direct Louisa Oxley’s abusive husband to his abused wife and son at Greenshaw’s Folly.

The production values for “GREENSHAW’S FOLLY” struck me as pretty solid. The majority of the story is set at a small English estate in the early-to-mid 1950s. This meant that production designer Jeff Tessler did not have to make any extra effort to re-create the television movie’s setting. But I will give credit to Tessler for doing his job in a competent manner and not providing any sloppy work. I can say the same about the production’s art department and costume/wardrobe department supervised by Jenna McGranaghan. The only wealthy character in the cast was Miss Greenshaw and being an eccentric botanist with no fashion sense, it was only natural that McGranaghan and her staff did not have to go the extra mile for the television movie’s costumes.

But I was impressed by the production’s cast. I thought Julia McKenzie did a tremendous job in conveying Jane Marple’s struggles to maintain a refuge for Julia and Archie Oxley, solve the murders in the story and evade the police’s attempts to put an end to her investigation. And she did all of this while maintaining Miss Marple’s quiet and reflective personality. Another performance that impressed me came from Fiona Shaw, who was first-rate as the warm, yet obviously eccentric Katherine Greenshaw. Kimberly Nixon gave a nuanced performance as Louisa Oxley, the abused wife whose attempts to befriend others in her new surrounding is muted by her fear of being discovered by her husband. I also have to give kudos to Martin Compston, who skillfully portrayed Alfred Pollock, the reserved groundskeeper, whose past as a convict threatens his current job and his future. “GREENSHAW’S FOLLY” also featured excellent supporting performances from the likes of Julia Sawalha, Sam Reid, Judy Parfitt, Joanna David, Bobby Smallbridge, Rufus Jones, Oscar Pearce, Vic Reeves, John Gordon Sinclair as the no-nonsense Inspector Welch and Robert Glenister as the very ambiguous Father Brophy.

I have to confess . . . I could never regard “GREENSHAW’S FOLLY” as one of those memorable Agatha Christie adaptations. Not by a long shot. Aside from the Cicely Beauclerk subplot, I could not find anything wrong it. But I cannot deny that while watching it, I actually managed to enjoy it very much. And this is due to a still first-rate screenplay by Tim Whitnall, solid direction from Sarah Harding and an excellent cast led by Julia McKenzie.