“STAR WARS: EPISODE IX – THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” (2019) Review

“STAR WARS: EPISODE IX – THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” (2019) Review

Despite its success at the box office, the second film in the Disney STAR WARS Sequel Trilogy, “STAR WARS: EPISODE VIII – THE LAST JEDI”, proved to be something of a publicity disaster. Many film critics loved it. An even greater number of moviegoers disliked it. Many have attributed this schism within the STAR WARS fandom as a contributing factor to the box office failure of “SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY”. To regain the universal love of the fandom, Disney Studios and Kathleen Kennedy of Lucasfilm brought back J.J. Abrams, who had directed “STAR WARS: EPISODE VII – THE FORCE AWAKENS”, to handled the trilogy’s third entry, “STAR WARS: EPISODE IX – THE RISE OF SKYWALKER”.

Disney Studios and Lucasfilm heralded “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” as not only the end of the franchise’s Sequel Trilogy, but also the end of the Skywalker family saga, which began under George Lucas. The 2019 movie began a year after “THE LAST JEDI”. The Resistance under Leia Organa has been hiding from the ever growing threat of the First Order, which has been ruled by her son, Kylo Ren aka Ben Solo. Leia has also been training Force acolyte Rey, while orchestrating the Resistance’s attempts to rebuild the organization and form contacts with other worlds and factions throughout the Galaxy. However, the film’s opening crawl reveals that Emperor Sheev Palpatine is still alive, despite being tossed down the second Death Star’s reactor shaft by Anakin Skywalker aka Darth Vader, while being electrocuted in “STAR WARS: EPISODE VI – RETURN OF THE JEDI”. Palpatine vows revenge against the Galaxy for its rejection of him and his power. Leia charges Poe Dameron, Finn and Rey to search for Palpatine and destroy him. Kylo Ren also seeks Palpatine with the intent to kill the latter and maintain his own supremacy of the First Order. Kylo Ren eventually manages to find Palpatine on the remote planet of Exegol. He learns that his former master, Snoke, had merely been a puppet of Palpatine. And the former Emperor wants him to find Rey and kill her in order to remove any possible threat to the resurgence of the Sith Order.

When I learned that J.J. Abrams would return to the “STAR WARS” franchise to conclude the Sequel Trilogy, my reactions were mixed. On one hand, I disliked his handling of “THE FORCE AWAKENS”. On the other hand, I completely loathed what Rian Johnson had done with “THE LAST JEDI”. And when Abrams had promised to do right by the Finn character, which had been so badly mishandled by Johnson . . . well, some part of me did not know whether to welcome Abrams’ return or be leery of it.

There were aspects of “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” that I liked. I was impressed by Dan Mindel’s cinematography for the movie, especially in scenes that featured the planet of Pasaana. I thought Mindel did an excellent job of utilizing the country of Jordan for those scenes, as shown below:

 

image

 

I was also impressed how Mindel shot the visual effects for the last duel between Rey and Kylo Ren among the second Death Star ruins on the Endor moon. Some of the film’s action sequences struck me as pretty memorable, thanks to Abrams’ direction, Mindel’s cinematography and stunt coordinator Eunice Huthart. I am referring to those scenes that feature the heroes’ occasional encounters with the First Order on Psaana and aboard the First Order star ship. I was also relieved to see the trilogy’s three protagonists – Rey, Finn and Poe Dameron – and Chewbacca spend a great deal of the movie together. The four characters managed to create a pretty solid dynamic, thanks to the performances of Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac and Joonas Suotamo and it is a shame that audiences never got a chance to experience this dynamic in the trilogy’s other two films.

There was an aspect of the film’s narrative that delivered a great deal of satisfaction to me. It is a small matter, but involved Rey’s Jedi training. I am very relieved that Abrams finally allowed Rey to receive substantial training from a mentor, who happened to be Leia. A year had passed between “THE LAST JEDI” and “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER”. Rey’s first scene established that Leia had been training her during that year. The movie also established in a flashback that Leia had received her training from her brother Luke Skywalker. Why did I find this satisfying? Most of Luke’s own Jedi training had also occurred during the period of a year – between the events of “STAR WARS: EPISODE V – THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK” and “RETURN OF THE JEDI”. And during this period, he had received his training from . . . you know, I have no idea on how Luke managed to complete his training. Even after so many years. To this day, it is a mystery. And this is why I am grateful that Abrams and co-writer Chris Terrio had made it clear that Leia had continued Rey’s training between “THE LAST JEDI” and “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER”.

The performances featured in the movie struck me as pretty solid, especially from the leads – Ridley, Boyega, Isaac and Adam Driver. The movie also featured solid, yet brief performances from returning cast members such as Kelly Marie Tran, Domhnall Gleeson, Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Billie Lourd, Lupita Nyong’o, and the late Carrie Fisher. Dominic Monaghan, Naomie Ackie, Keri Russell and Richard E. Grant all made nice additions to the trilogy. It was great to see Billy Dee Williams reprise his role as Lando Calrissian. He was one of the bright spots of this film. Hell, it was even nice to see Denis Lawson as Wedge Antilles again, despite his brief appearance. But if I must be honest, I was not particularly blown away by any of them – including the usually outstanding Boyega. Actually, I take that back. There was one cast member who provided a moment of superb acting. I refer to Joonas Suotamo, who did an excellent job in conveying a true moment of grief and despair for Chewbacca’s character in the film’s second half.

But I do have a complaint about one particular performance. And it came, from all people, Ian McDiarmid who portrayed the surprisingly alive Emperor Palpatine. How can I put this? This Palpatine seemed like a ghost of his former self. No. Wait. That was phrased wrong. What I meant to say is that McDiarmid’s portrayal of Palpatine in this film seemed like an exaggeration in compare to his performances in the Original and Prequel Trilogy films. Exaggerated . . . ham-fisted. I found McDiarmid’s scenes so wince-inducing that I could barely watch them. However, aware of McDiarmid’s true skills as an actor, I finally realized that his bad performance may have been a result of J.J. Abrams’ direction. The latter’s failure as a director in Palpatine’s scenes and failure to visualize the character as a subtle and manipulative villain really impeded McDiarmid’s performance.

Unfortunately, McDiarmid’s performance was not my only problem with “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER”. I had a host of others. Many film critics have bashed J.J. Abrams for trying to reject what Rian Johnson had set up in “THE LAST JEDI”. I find this criticism ironic, considering that Johnson had rejected a great deal of what Abrams had set up in “THE FORCE AWAKENS”. Not that it really matters to me. I disliked “THE FORCE AWAKENS”. I disliked “THE LAST JEDI”. And if I must be brutally honest, I disliked “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER”. Like the other two films, I thought the 2019 movie was pretty bad.

My first problem with “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” was its main narrative. Basically, the entire story revolved around the heroes and the First Order’s search for the now alive Palpatine. The film’s opening crawl pretty much announced to movie audiences that Palpatine was alive without bothering presenting this revelation as a surprise. It is simply the old case of “tell and not show” that has hampered a great number of fictional works throughout time. I believe this narrative device especially does not suit a plot for a motion picture or a television series, because it comes off as a cheat. It is lazy writing. Worse, most of the main characters spend a great deal of the movie searching for Palpatine. And when they finally discover him, no one bothered to ask how he had escaped death after being allegedly killed by Anakin Skywalker aka Darth Vader in “RETURN OF THE JEDI”. How did Palpatine survive being tossed to his death, while being electrocuted by Force lightning? Well, STAR WARS fans finally learned the truth in the film’s novelization written by Rae Carson. The only major character who immediately managed to find Palpatine was Kylo Ren, who used a Sith wayfinder . . . or compass. Meanwhile, Rey, Finn, Poe and Chewbacca had to resort to following clues to lead to first a Sith dagger, and later, a Sith wayfinder – traveling from one planet to another at a dizzying speed. This whole search for a wayfinder and Palpatine struck me as unnecessarily rushed. I do not think it is a good thing when a person complains about the fast pacing of a movie with a 142 minutes running time. For me, this exposed the hollow nature of the movie’s narrative.

As I had earlier stated, the majority of the film’s narrative is centered around the protagonists’ determination to find Palpatine. A part of me wonders how did the Resistance and the First Order had planned to kill him, once he was discovered. And yes, the First Order’s leader, Kylo Ren, also wanted Palpatine’s dead. But how did any of them plan to kill him? The movie never conveyed any of the other characters’ plans. Worse, this search for Palpatine had transformed the movie into some space opera version of both the INDIANA JONES and NATIONAL TREASURE movie franchises. Was that why Abrams had decided to expose Palpatine’s return or resurrection in the film’s opening crawl? So he could have his major characters embark on this “Indiana Jones” style hunt for Palpatine from the get go? Or relive the whole “map to Luke Skywalker” search from “THE FORCE AWAKENS” that proved to be so irrelevant? Well guess what? The “Search for Palpatine” proved to be equally irrelevant. Watching Rey, Finn, Poe and Chewbacca hunt down artifacts that would lead them to Palpatine was one of the more ridiculous aspects of this film. I felt as if I had watched a hybrid STAR WARS/INDIANA JONES/NATIONAL TREASURE movie. It was fucking exhausting.

Returning to Palpatine, I was unpleasantly shocked to learn that during the thirty years he was missing, he had created a new fleet of Star Destroyers, each ship equipped with a planet-killing laser. Thirty years. Is that how long it took Palpatine (or his clone) to create a fleet of planet killing Star Destroyers? Is that why he had taken so long construct these ships? If one Star Destroyer can destroy a planet, why did he bother to wait so long to use any of them to re-take the Galaxy? Three decades? I wish I could say more, but I do not see the point. Is a Star Destroyer strong enough to be used as a “base” for a laser powerful enough to destroy a planet?

I have also noticed that the lightsaber duels featured in “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” . . . well, they were bad. Quite a travesty, if I must be honest. I have never been that impressed by the lightsaber duels in the Sequel Trilogy, but even I must admit that Kylo Ren’s duels with both Finn and Rey in “THE FORCE AWAKENS” were somewhat better than the Obi-Wan Kenobi/Darth Vader duel in “STAR WARS: EPISODE IV – A NEW HOPE”. But after the 2015 movie . . . dear God. Rey and Kylo Ren’s fight against Snoke’s guards in “THE LAST JEDI” struck me as something of a joke. But Rey and Kylo Ren’s duels in “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” were simply abysmal. Dan Mindel’s cinematography and the movie’s visual effects team could do nothing to hide the laughable nature of the duels. Both Daisy Ridley and Adam Driver seemed to spend a great deal of their time slashing at each with no semblance of swordsmanship whatsoever. Where is Nick Gillard when you need him?

Not surprisingly, “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” revealed a number of Force abilities that appeared for the first (or second time) in the STAR WARS franchise. The Force bond between Rey and Kylo Ren, which was created by Snoke in the previous film; allowed the First Order leader to snatch a necklace from the Resistance fighter’s neck in a violent manner – despite the fact that the pair was thousands of miles from each other. And in another scene, while Rey faced Palpatine and Kylo Ren faced the Knights of the Ren, she was able to hand over a lightsaber to him – despite being miles apart. How did they do this? I have not the foggiest idea. I do not even understand how Abrams and Terrio managed to create this ability in the first place. And frankly, I find it rather stupid and implausible. Force healing. For the first time in the history of the franchise, a Force user has the ability to heal. How did this come about? I have not the foggiest idea. If this had been the case during the events of the Prequel Trilogy, chances are Anakin Skywalker would have never become a Sith Lord. The Force healing ability made its debut in the Disney Plus series, “THE MANDALORIAN” . . . I think. However, Kylo Ren had the ability to use Force healing. So did Rey. I do not know who taught them or how . . . fuck it! I will just treat this as another plot device that came out of Lucasfilm’s ass. “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” also revealed that the “resurrected” Palpatine had the ability to transfer one person’s essence into the body of another. How? More contrived writing.

Speaking of contrivance, there is the matter of one Leia Organa. Although a part of me still believes Lucasfilm should have killed off Leia Organa in “THE LAST JEDI”, in the wake of Carrie Fisher’s death a year before the film’s release; I must admit that Abrams did an admirable job in utilizing old footage of the actress from “THE FORCE AWAKENS”, digital special effects and Billie Lourd as a body double for some of Leia’s scenes. But I hated the way Leia was finally killed off. It was similar to Luke’s ludicrous death in “THE LAST JEDI”. I HATE how Disney Studios and Lucasfilm portray the Force as some kind of energy that can kill an individual if it was used too long or too hard. As if the Force user was some kind of goddamn battery. I really hate that. And this is why I dislike Leia’s death just as much as I disliked Luke’s.

In fact, this movie seemed to be filled with contrived writing. As for the Rebel Alli . . . I mean the Resistance, I noticed that their numbers had grown since the end of “THE LAST JEDI”. Had Leia managed to recruit new members for the Resistance’s cause during the year between the two films? If so, “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” did not hint one way or the other. I mean there were barely enough Resistance members to crowd the Millennium Falcon in the last film’s finale. And the narrative for “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” seemed to hint that aside from Maz Kanata, hardly anyone new had bothered to join the Resistance during that year between the two films. So . . . if this is true, why did the number of Resistance members seemed to have tripled during that year between the two movies? Among the new members is one Beaumont Kin, portrayed by “LOST” alumni Dominic Monaghan.

Speaking of characters – the arcs for the major characters have proven to be as disastrous as those featured in “THE FORCE AWAKENS” and especially “THE LAST JEDI”. I was surprised to see Maz Kanata as a member of the Resistance. Her recruitment into the organization was never seen on screen. Even worse, the former smuggler and tavern owner was basically reduced to a background character with one or two lines. Actress Lupita Nyong’o’s time was certainly wasted for this film. Although I thought Rose Tico was a promising character, I never liked how Rian Johnson had used her as a very unnecessary mentor for Finn in “THE LAST JEDI”. However, my hopes that J.J. Abrams would do her character justice in “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” proved to be fruitless. In this film, Rose had been reduced from supporting character to minor character, who spent most of her appearances interacting with Monaghan’s Beaumont Kin in three or four scenes. What a damn waste! Speaking of waste . . . poor Domhnall Gleeson. His character, General Armitage Hux, was another character whose presence was wasted in “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER”. Audiences learned in the film’s second half that he had become a mole for the Resistance, supplying the group information on the First Order’s movements. The problem with this scenario is that film had Hux explained that he was simply betraying his leader, Kylo Ren. But his reason for this betrayal was never fully explained, let alone developed. Harrison Ford returned in a brief cameo appearance as the ghost of Han Solo. Wait a minute. Let me re-phrase that. Ford returned as a figment of Kylo Ren’s imagination . . . as Han Solo. How was his performance? Unmemorable.

“THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” also featured a good number of new characters. Probably too many. I have already mentioned Resistance fighter Beaumont Kim. Abrams and co-writer Chris Terrio also introduced Jannah, a former stormtrooper who had deserted from the First Order like Finn. When she was introduced, I had assumed that Finn’s background would finally be explored. Never happened. Worse, Abrams only allowed Jannah – a new character – to speculate on her background in one line spoken to Lando Calrissian. And nothing else. Next, there was Zorri Bliss, a smuggler and former paramour of Poe Dameron’s, who provided the Resistance with information on how to interpret the Sith dagger in their possession. Aside from this task, Bliss managed to miraculously survive the destruction of Kijimi, her homeworld to participate in the final battle against Palpatine and the First Order. Through her, audiences learned that Poe was a former spice smuggler . . . a drug smuggler. More on this, later. And finally, we have Allegiant General Enric Pryde, who came out of no where to become Kylo Ren’s top commander. It occurred to me that Pryde turned out to be the Sequel Trilogy’s General Grievous. I love the Prequel Trilogy, but I never liked Grievous. He should have been introduced a lot earlier than the Prequel Trilogy’s last film. And Enric Pryde should have been introduced earlier than “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER”. It would have made his brief conflict with Hux a lot more believable.

I read somewhere that the character of Kylo Ren aka Ben Solo is the most popular in the Sequel Trilogy. I am a firm admirer of actor Adam Driver and I thought he gave a solid performance as Kylo Ren. But . . . the character has never been a favorite of mine. I could complain that Kylo Ren is bad written, but I can honestly say the same about the other major (and minor) characters. Yet for some reason, Lucasfilm, a good number of the STAR WARS and media seemed to think the stars shined on Kylo Ren’s ass. I hate it when the glorification of a story or character is unearned and then shoved down the throats of the public. In “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER”, Kylo Ren’s character arc proved to be just as rushed and full of writing contrivances as his relationship arc in “THE LAST JEDI”. Honestly. Unlike Anakin Skywalker in the Original Trilogy, Kylo Ren’s redemption was never properly set up in “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER”. It merely sprung up in the film’s last third act so that Abrams (the unoriginal storyteller that he is) could allow him to mimic his grandfather’s arc. Looking back on Kylo Ren’s character, he should have continued his arc from the end of “THE LAST JEDI” – as the main villain. Instead, Abrams and Lucasfilm brought back Palpatine so they could have Kylo Ren repeat Anakin’s arc and avoid dying as the film’s Big Bad. This decision only brought about bad writing. And then we have Poe Dameron. In some ways, Poe proved to be the worst written character in this trilogy. It almost seemed as if Lucasfilm, Abrams and Rian Johnson did not know what to do with him. His death was initially set up in “THE FORCE AWAKENS” and he spent most of that film off-screen, only to make a miraculous re-appearance near the end, with no real explanation how he had survived the crash on Jakku. In “THE LAST JEDI”, Johnson had transformed Poe into some hot-headed Latino stereotype, who questioned the decisions of the Resistance’s two female leaders – Leia and Admiral Holdo. And “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” made another revision to Poe’s character. The movie revealed that Poe had a past romance with the smuggler Zorri Bliss and was a spice runner (drug smuggler). How quaint. Abrams and Terrio took the only leading character in the Sequel Trilogy portrayed by a Latino actor and transformed him into a drug lord. Where the two writers watching “NARCO” or old reruns of “MIAMI VICE” when they made this decision to Poe’s character? God only knows. I do know that in my eyes, this was another mark of racism on Lucasfilm’s belt.

Speaking of racism . . . what on earth happened to Finn? Following Rian Johnson’s shoddy treatment of his character in “THE LAST JEDI”, J.J. Abrams had assured the franchise’s fans that he would do justice to Finn. And he failed. Spectacularly. Did Finn even have a character arc in “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER”? The former stormtrooper spent most of the film either participating in the search for Palpatine, while keeping one eye on the constantly distracted Rey, like some lovesick puppy. He seemed to lack his own story in this film. “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” could have provided the perfect opportunity for Lucasfilm to further explore his background as a former stormtrooper. With the creation of Jannah, I thought it would finally happen. Instead, the movie focused more on Jannah’s questions about her origins. And Lucasfilm and Abrams wasted the chance to even consider at subplot regarding Finn and the First Order’s stormtroopers. Boyega also spent most of the film hinting that he had something important to tell Rey. Many believe he was trying to confess that he loved her. That is because the movie DID NOT allow him to finally make his confession. Even worse, audiences learned that he wanted to confess his suspicions that he might be Force sensitive. And Lucasfilm confirmed this. Why on earth could they NOT confirm Finn’s Force sensitivity on film? Why? What was the point in keeping this a secret until AFTER the film’s release?

I also noticed one other disturbing aspect about Finn . . . or John Boyega. I just discovered that John Boyega had been demoted by Disney Studios and Lucasfilm from leading actor to supporting actor. Only this had happened a lot sooner that I thought. In the studio’s Academy Awards campaign for “THE FORCE AWAKENS”, it pushed Boyega for a Best Actor nomination. But in both “THE LAST JEDI” and “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER”, the studio pushed him for a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Yet, for all three movies, Lucasfilm and Disney also pushed a white actor for Best Actor. They pushed Harrison Ford (along with Boyega) “THE FORCE AWAKENS”. They pushed Mark Hamill for Best Actor in “THE LAST JEDI”. Yet, both Ford and Hamill were clearly part of the supporting cast. And they pushed Adam Driver for Best Actor for “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER”. Hmmmm . . . Driver went from supporting actor to lead actor, while Boyega was demoted from lead actor to supporting actor. A few more notches in Lucasfilm/Disney’s racist belt. God, I am sick to my stomach. And poor John Boyega. He was poorly misused by Lucasfilm, Disney Studios, Rian Johnson and J.J. Abrams.

As for Rey . . . I am completely over her as a character. Although I found her Mary Sue qualities annoying, I found her arc in “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” a complete mess. The only good that came from her arc was the fact that Leia had trained her in the ways of the Force for a year. Otherwise, I had to grit my teeth and watch her behave in this chaotic manner throughout the entire film. Every time she and her friends were in the middle of some situation, she would get distracted by Kylo Ren’s presence and break away. Why? So she could kill him . . . I guess. Apparently, killing Kylo Ren was more important to her than completing a mission for the Resistance. Why? I have no idea. The movie’s narrative never explained this behavior of hers. And it gets worse. Rey eventually learns that she is Palpatine’s granddaughter. Granddaughter. Palpatine managed to knock up some woman years ago and conceive a son after he had become Emperor. That son conceived Rey with her mother before dying. Palpatine, who had been alive all of these years, never bothered to get his hands on Rey . . . until this movie. Why? I have no idea.

During Rey and Kylo Ren’s final duel, she managed to shove her lightsaber blade into his gut. And then she used the Force to heal him. Why? Perhaps she felt guilty for nearly killing him. Who knows? Later, she is killed by Palpatine (who could not make up his mind on whether he wanted her alive or dead) before Kylo Ren Force healed her. And then she planted a big wet kiss on his pucker. Lucasfilm and Disney claimed that the kiss was an act of gratitude on her part. I did not realize that gratitude could be so sexual. Nevertheless, Lucasfilm and Disney ensured that the only leading male that Rey would exchange bodily fluids with was one who shared her white skin. Despite the fact that this . . . man had more or less abused her – mentally and physically – since “THE FORCE AWAKENS”. There was no real development that led to this sexual kiss of gratitude. But I guess Disney and Lucasfilm were determined that Rey would not exchange a kiss with the two non-white men. Another notch on Lucasfilm/Disney’s racist belt. Oh . . . and by the way, the film or Lucasfilm had established that Rey and Kylo Ren were part of some Force dyad. What is a Force dyad? Two Force-sensitive people who had created a Force bond, making them one in the Force. And this happened because Rey and Kylo Ren were grandchildren of Sith Lords. I have never heard of anything so ludicrous in my life, especially since it was established in “THE LAST JEDI” that Snoke – a creation of Palpatine, by the way – had created their mental bond. How he did that I have no idea.

You know what? I could go on and on about “STAR WARS: EPISODE IX – THE RISE OF SKYWALKER”. But I now realize it would take a goddamn essay to explain why I dislike this movie so much. I should have realized that J.J. Abrams’ promises that he would fix the problems of “STAR WARS: EPISODE VIII – THE LAST JEDI” was worth shit in the wind. He, Chris Terrio, Disney Studios and Lucasfilm only made the Sequel Trilogy worse . . . as if that was possible. Not only was “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER” a waste of my time, so was the entire Sequel Trilogy. And it wasted the acting skills of its talented cast led by Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac and Adam Driver for so many years.

“JEZEBEL” (1938) Review

“JEZEBEL” (1938) Review

Following the release of Margaret Mitchell’s 1936 novel, “Gone With the Wind”, some Hollywood studios scrambled to find a way to cash in on its success. Producer David O. Selznick managed to purchase the film rights to Mitchell’s novel. However, Warner Brothers Studios decided to do its own Southern melodrama called “JEZEBEL”.

Directed by William Wyler, “JEZEBEL” starred Bette Davis in the title role as a headstrong New Orleans belle named Julie Marsden in the early 1850s. Julie’s vanity and willful nature leads her to a series of actions, culminating in the loss of the man she loves, a banker named Preston “Pres” Dillard. The movie begins with Julie and Preston engaged and the former demanding the full attention of the latter. When Pres refuses to drop his work and accompany her on a shopping expedition for the upcoming Olympus Ball, Julie decides to retaliate by ordering a red dress (in New Orleans society, virgins wear white). Although Pres accompanies Julie to the ball and dances with her, he eventually has enough of her temperamental and foolhardy behavior and breaks off their engagement. Then he leaves New Orleans to spend some time up North in New York City. Julie eventually realizes she had made a major blunder and spends a year grieving over her broken engagement. However, she becomes determined to mend fences with him, when he returns to New Orleans. But their reunion proves to be bittersweet, due to Pres’ new companion – his bride – and the potential danger of a yellow fever pandemic within the city.

The road to the 1938 movie began with playwright Owen Davis Jr., whose play of the same title made its Broadway debut in December 1933. Starring Miriam Hopkins, the play only ran on Broadway for over a month before it eventually flopped. Someone at Warner Brothers must have seen some kind of potential in this Southern melodrama for the studio had purchased the play back in 1937. Rumor has it that the studio had specifically purchased it for Bette Davis as compensation for her failure to win the part of Scarlett O’Hara for David O. Selznick’s film adaptation of Mitchell’s novel. The truth is that Selznick had yet to consider his leading lady for the 1939 film back in 1937. I think Warner Brothers saw the story provided a juicy role for Davis and purchased it. Miriam Hopkins, who had starred in the 1933 play, had hoped to be cast in the coveted role. Needless to say, she was very disappointed when Wallis informed her that he had only “considered her” for the role. Warner Brothers had originally cast Jeffrey Lynn for the role of Julie’s true love, banker Preston Dillard. However, the producers of a play he was appearing in refused to release him and the studio eventually turned to 20th Century-Fox star Henry Fonda as a last minute replacement. As for the film’s director, Wallis and studio chief Jack Warner’s first choice as director was Edmund Goulding (who had directed “GRAND HOTEL”), who was eventually dropped. Next, they approached Michael Curtiz (future “CASABLANCA” director), who dropped out at the last moment. They finally hired William Wyler, who had a contract with Samuel Goldwyn at the time.

There have been many comparisons between “JEZEBEL” and the 1939 movie, “GONE WITH THE WIND”. Considering the settings and leading female roles for both films, I could see why. But this is about my opinion of “JEZEBEL”. The 1938 movie is not perfect. Since the film is set in the Antebellum South, naturally it would feature characters that are African-American slaves. With the exception of two characters, the majority of them are portrayed in the usual “happy slaves” literary trope that has marred a good number of Old Hollywood films set during the 19th century. You know . . . infantilizing the black characters. One scene featuring Julie’s maid, Zette, enthusiastically accepting Julie’s infamous red gown as a present. Now, any maid worth her salt would recognize the gown as trash. A black maidfrom the 1939 comedy, “DAY TIME WIFE”, certainly regarded a cheap rabbit fur as trash and contemptuously rejected it as a throwaway present. But this wince-inducing portrayal of blacks in “JEZEBEL” seemed to be at its zenith in one particular scene that featured the Halcyon slaves greeting Julie’s guests upon their arrival at her plantation . . . with cheers. Mind you, I have seen worse in the 1957 movie, “BAND OF ANGELS”. Another major scene that I found equally wince-inducing featured Julie and a group of young slaves surrounding her, while they sing “Raise a Ruckus” to her guests. Yikes. I find ironic that a film like “GONE WITH THE WIND”, which was equally guilty of its cliched portrayal of African-Americans, managed to feature at least three or four memorable black characters. I cannot say the same for “JEZEBEL”, despite having the likes of Eddie Anderson (who was also in the 1939 Best Picture winner) and Theresa Harris in its cast. William Wyler redeemed himself, I am happy to say, in his 1956 movie, “FRIENDLY PERSUASION”. Ironically, a good number of the white minor characters – namely men – seemed to be stuck in some kind of “Southern gentlemen” cliché from stories set in the Old South. You know the type – he wears a wide planter’s hat, while either holding a glass of booze, a cigar or both; while discussing duels or putting down Yankees. This was especially apparent in one of the film’s first scenes at a saloon, inside the famous St. Louis Hotel.

There is also one scene, earlier in the film, that left me scratching my head. It featured Preston Dillard at his bank’s board meeting, discussing the possibility of constructing rail lines through New Orleans and throughout Louisiana. I realize that the other board members’ negative reaction to Pres’ support for the railroad was suppose to be a sign of the South’s backwardness and unwillingness to accept the advancement of technology. But I found this hard to accept. The movie began in 1852. During this period, the state of Louisiana was already expanding the railroad throughout the state. Nor was the South adverse to accept technological advances, as long as its elite profit from it. If the region – especially the Mississippi Valley – was willing to use steamboats to ship their cotton and sugar to the North, why not railroads? One mode of transportation was just as good as the other. And Southern planters certainly had no qualms in using Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin to become the number one producer and exporter of cotton in the first place. So, this scene seemed a bit unreal to me from a historical point-of-view.

I have two other problems with “JEZEBEL” that I consider aesthetic. One of those problems featured the film’s production designs, supervised by Robert Fellows. I had no problems with the production designs for New Orleans’ French Quarter. I had a big problem with the production designs for Julie Marsden’s plantation, Halcyon. At least the exterior designs. In the scene that featured the arrival of Julie’s guests, Halcyon’s front lawn and the exterior designs for the house resembled a large house in a Southern suburb, instead of a plantation house. I did not expect Halcyon’s exteriors to resemble some clichéd Southern manor. But it seemed quite clear to me that Fellows, along with art director Robert M. Haas and the film’s art department did not put much thought in the plantation’s exterior design. Quite frankly, it almost resembled a facade constructed in front of a matte painting, on the Warner Brothers back lot.

I certainly did not have a problem with most of Orry-Kelly’s costumes for the film. But I had a problem with one in particular . . . namely the infamous Olympus Ball “red gown”:

I realize that in the movie, the gown had been originally created for one of New Orleans’ most infamous courtesans. And I did not have a problem with the gown’s full skirt, which accurately reflected the movie’s early 1850s setting. But that bodice . . . seriously? A strapless ballgown in 1852? I do not care if the gown was originally created for a prostitute. No such ballgown existed in the 1850s. The gown’s bodice struck me as pure late 1930s. The ballgown is practically schizophrenic as far as historical accuracy is concerned. And I am surprised that so many film critics and movie fans have failed to realize this.

Surprisingly, there is a good deal to admire in “JEZEBEL” . . . actually a lot. Many critics have compared it unfavorably to “GONE WITH THE WIND”, due to the latter being a historical drama. Somewhat. Well, aside from its use of the New Orleans 1853 Yellow Fever Epidemic and the U.S. sectional conflict of the antebellum period in its narrative, “JEZEBEL” is not what I would describe as a historical drama. Which is why I find the movie’s comparison to “GONE WITH THE WIND” rather questionable. Besides, the movie is basically a character study of one Julie Marsden, an orphaned Louisiana belle who also happened to be the owner of a plantation called Halcyon. Screenwriters Clements Ripley, Abem Finkel and John Huston structured the film’s narrative as a three-act play – which is not surprising considering its literary source. All three segments of the film – “The Dress”, “The Duel” and “The Fever” – served as different stages in Julie’s tenuous relationship with Pres Dillard. But the best I can say about “JEZEBEL” it is a well-balanced mixture of character study, melodrama and a touch of historical drama for good measure. I can honestly say that “JEZEBEL” was not some uneven mixture of genres.

There is something about “JEZEBEL” that I found rather odd. On one level, the whole movie seemed to be about how a willful and over-privileged woman finally received her comeuppance after causing so much chaos and even tragedy in the lives of those close to her. Yes, Julie Marsden was a selfish and rather childish woman who believed the worlds of others – especially Pres Dillard – should revolve around her. After all, it was her petulant reaction to Pres’ refusal to accompany her on a shopping trip that set their break-up in motion. But I must admit that I was surprised to find some aspect of the film’s narrative that questioned the 19th society that demanded Julie remained in her place, as a woman. Yes, she was selfish and childish. But she possessed a bold personality that seemed unfit for conforming to society’s rigid rules. In a way, I could not help but wonder if some of her attempts to do what she wanted had sprung from some kind of frustration at being expected to remaining below the glass ceiling. Surprisingly, one example was the character Preston Dillard. As I had pointed out earlier, “JEZEBEL” featured the usual “happy slaves” clichés in its portrayal of the African-American characters. But it also used the Pres Dillard character to criticize the South’s dependence on slavery. Pres denied more than once of being a follower of abolition. Yet, his criticism of slave labor, his respectful attitude toward slaves like Uncle Cato, his decision to live in the North and his support for technological advances in transportation and an improved sanitation system for New Orleans seemed to hint otherwise.

A better example of the film’s criticism of 19th century Southern society came from the film’s second act, “The Duel”. Yes, I felt contempt at Julie’s efforts to humiliate Pres and his new bride Amy by manipulating her former beau, the hot-headed Buck Cantrell, into goading them. And I also felt disgusted when her manipulations led to a duel between Buck and Pres’ younger brother, Theodore “Ted” Dillard. This proved to be especially ironic due to the close friendship between the pair. But what really disgusted me was not only did Julie eventually realized she had went too far and tried to prevent the duel; both Buck and Ted knew that Julie had manipulated them into that duel and her reason behind her action. Yet, those two morons insisted upon carrying out the duel. For face. I was especially disgusted with Buck and his blind adherence to this “gentleman’s honor” nonsense. Buck and Ted’s insistence upon carrying out their duel, despite knowledge of Julie’s role in it, seemed to be a harsh criticism of a society that encouraged such duels. This is pretty rare for a Hollywood film made before the 1960s, let alone the 1950s.

Despite a few quibbles, I was very impressed by the production and art designs for “JEZEBEL”. Red ballgown aside, I thought Orry-Kelly did an exceptional job with the film’s costumes. The Australian-born designer’s costumes came very close to reflecting the fashions of the early 1850s – not only for women, but also for men. I was also impressed by the production and art designs that also did an excellent job of reflecting the film’s setting – 1852-1853 Louisiana. The exterior designs for the Halcyon plantation may have been a bust, but I cannot say for the other exterior and set designs. This was certainly the case for the exterior designs for the New Orleans French Quarter scenes, as seen in the image below:

Jezebel.jpg

I simply found them exquisite. This artistry was on full display, thanks to the movie’s long opening shot that introduced movie fans to New Orleans circa 1852. And we can thank both director William Wyler and cinematographer Ernest Haller for this memorable scene. And this was just the first. Another creative sequence from Wyler, Haller and the film’s art designers featured a montage that introduced movie audiences to the film’s third and final act – the Yellow Jack epidemic.

I did not have a problem with the film’s performances. In general. But as I had stated earlier, I found some of the performances for minor white planters and black slaves a bit over-the-top. One of those over-the-top performances came from Donald Crisp, of all people, who portrayed Dr. Livingstone – Pres Dillard’s mentor. I thought Crisp took the whole Southern gentleman cliche just a bit too far. I was also a bit troubled by Theresa Harris’ portrayal of Julie’s maid, Zette. It seemed a bit too cliched in my opinion and I wish that William Wyler had reined in her performance a bit. Harris had better luck portraying another maid in the 1941 period comedy, “THE FLAME OF NEW ORLEANS”. There was one more performance that failed to impress me and it came from Margaret Lindsay, who portrayed Pres’ Northern-born wife Amy. How can I say this? Would one consider a limp and underwhelming character like Amy as another literary trope? At least for a story set in the mid-19th century? I could say that Lindsay was a bad actress, but I find this hard to accept, considering her performance in the 1940 melodrama, “THE HOUSE OF THE SEVEN GABLES”.

Fortunately for “JEZEBEL”, it did feature some very solid performances. Eddie Anderson gave a pretty solid performance as Julie’s competent stable hand, Gros Bat. Matthew “Stymie” Beard struck me as equally solid as his young son, Ti Bat. Spring Byington was amusing as Julie’s slightly snobbish neighbor, Mrs. Kendrick. Margaret Early gave a lively performance as the former’s daughter, Stephanie Kendrick. Henry O’Neill was pretty solid as one of Julie’s guardians, General Theopholus Bogardus. But I did not find him particularly memorable. Lew Payton gave excellent support as Julie’s major domo, Uncle Cato. And Richard Cromwell really impressed me as Pres’ younger brother, the intelligent yet temperamental Ted Dillard. But there were two supporting performances that truly impressed me. One came from George Brent, who I believe gave one of the best performances of his screen career, as the uber-macho Buck Cantrell. One, his grasp of a Lower South accent really impressed me. The actor also managed to convey the glimmer of Buck’s intelligence behind his masculine posturing – something that made the rupture of his friendship with Ted Dillard rather tragic. The other impressive supporting performance came from Fay Bainter, who portrayed Julie’s other guardian, Aunt Belle Massey. Bainter did such an excellent job of conveying the character’s tiring efforts to make Julie conform to society’s rules, especially those for women. Bainter made Belle Massey’s struggles so apparent that when Julie’s manipulations led to the Buck-Ted duel, Bainter gave that infamous “Jezebel” speech with a superb performance that may have sealed her win as Best Supporting Actress Oscar.

I have read a good number of reviews for “JEZEBEL”. And for the likes of me, I cannot understand why Henry Fonda’s portrayal of banker Preston “Pres” Dillard was dismissed as either wooden or weak. I find the contempt toward the character rather mind-boggling. I even came across an article in which the author could not decide which male character was this film’s Rhett Butler – Pres Dillard or Buck Cantrell. Was that why so many had dismissed Fonda’s character? Because he was no Rhett Butler? I hope not. Personally, I found Fonda’s performance spot on as the intelligent, yet beleaguered Pres, who finally decided that he had enough of Julie’s antics. Fonda’s Pres Dillard wooden? I beg to differ. Fonda did an excellent job of conveying Pres’ emotions throughout the film – whether it was his initial passion for Julie, a combination of confusion and exasperation in dealing with Julie’s childishness, his determination to save New Orleans’ citizens in dealing with a potential pandemic, any lingering physical attraction he might feel for Julie following his marriage, and his anger. Like his younger brother, Pres had a temper, but he controlled it through a very intimidating stare that left others unwilling to confront or challenge him. It is a pity that he was never acknowledged with an acting nomination for his performance.

Bette Davis, on the other hand, more than deserved her Best Actress Oscar for her performance as the spoiled Julie Marsden. What can I say? She was superb. She would probably be the first to thank William Wyler for his direction of her performance. And perhaps the director deserved some credit for guiding her performance and eliminating some of her bad habits of exaggerated behavior. But Wyler could only do so much. The talent was there – within Davis. She recognized that she had a first-rate director on her hands and did everything she could to give a stellar performance as the bold, yet childish and vindictive Julie. And Davis knocked it out of the ballpark with some of the most subtle and skillful acting of her career.

I realized that I have not discussed the movie’s most famous scene – namely the Olympus Ball. I can see why so many critics and moviegoers were impressed by it. The film’s production manager had scheduled one day for Wyler to shoot it. The director shot it in five days and created a cinematic masterpiece. Each moment was exquisitely detailed – from Julie and Pres’ arrival, the other guests’ reaction to Julie’s dress, Pres’ insistence that the band begin playing, the dance, the manner in which the other guests slowly pulled away from couple . . . I could go on. But what really made this scene for me were Davis and Fonda’s performances. Between Davis expressing Julie’s growing unease and humiliation and Fonda conveying Pres’ intimidation of everyone in the room, it was easy for me to see why these two, along with Wyler, became Hollywood icons.

I cannot deny that “JEZEBEL” had its problems – including some of its production designs, one particular costume, and the inclusion of Southern character stereotypes – especially African-American slaves. But . . . I also cannot deny that when push comes to shove, “JEZEBEL” is a well-written melodrama and a character study of a complex woman. The movie greatly benefited from a pretty damn good script written by Clements Ripley, Abem Finkel and John Huston; an excellent cast led by Oscar winner Bette Davis and Henry Fonda; and superb direction from the likes of William Wyler. I never understood why “JEZEBEL” had to exist within the shadows of “GONE WITH THE WIND”. It is more than capable of standing on its own merits.

 

“STAR WARS: Memories of a Mother”

image

 

“STAR WARS: MEMORIES OF A MOTHER”

Ever since the release of the 2005 movie, “STAR WARS: EPISODE III – REVENGE OF THE SITH”, many STAR WARS have accused George Lucas of including a major blooper in the movie. In the eyes of these fans, Lucas’ major blooper was the death of Senator Padmé Amidala, wife of Anakin Skywalker aka Darth Vader and mother of Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia Organa.

How did Padmé die? Well in the 2005 movie, Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi had paid her a visit in order to learn the whereabouts of Anakin, his former apprentice, following the fall of the Jedi Order. Padmé learned from Obi-Wan that Anakin had become the new apprentice of Sheev Palpatine, who is a Sith Lord. She also learned from the Jedi Master that Anakin had participated in the Jedi Purge at the Order’s Temple – a purge that included the deaths of all the Order’s younglings inside the Temple. Obi-Wan had questioned Padmé about Anakin’s whereabouts, but she refused to tell him. Instead, she departed for Mustafar to question Anakin about his actions, unaware that Obi-Wan had followed her. To make a long story short, Padmé tried to talk Anakin into dropping his Sith affiliation, she failed due to Obi-Wan’s sudden appeared (he had placed a tracker on her starship), Anakin attacked Padmé with a Force choke before he ended up in a lightsaber duel against his former master. The duel ended in defeat for Anakin, who ended up slowly burning to death on a lava bank, minus his limbs. Obi-Wan transported Padmé and the couple’s droids to a medical facility on a large asteroid above Polis Massa, where she gave birth to Luke and Leia. Then she died.

Many STAR WARS fans have been in an uproar over Padmé’s death in “REVENGE OF THE SITH” for nearly sixteen years. They complained that the manner of her death – allowing her despair over Anakin and the Republic to affect her health following the twins’ deaths. I have already written one or two articles on that subject. But they also complained that her death on Polis Massa is a major blooper. A plot hole. And they claim that the discussion between Luke and Leia about Padmé in the 1983 movie, “STAR TREK: EPISODE VI – RETURN OF THE JEDI”, is the reason why Padmé’s death is a blooper. They claim that Leia’s memories of Padmé is proof that their mother should not have died immediately after their births in “REVENGE OF THE SITH”.

What exactly did Leia say to Luke when he had first questioned her about their mother? The following is their exchange:

Luke: Leia, do you remember your mother? Your real mother?
Leia: Just a little bit. She died when I was very young.
Luke: What do you remember?
Leia: Just images, really. Feelings.
Luke: Tell me.
Leia: She was very beautiful. Kind, but sad. Why are you asking me all this?

Why do these fans still believe Padmé Amidala’s death in “REVENGE OF THE SITH” is a plot hole, based on her daughter Leia Organa’s memories? I never understood this. In “RETURN OF THE JEDI”, Leia had never stated that she had memories of Padme alive and with her. Not once. This is something that so many STAR WARS fans had assumed what happened without bothering to think. Leia had made it clear in her conversation with Luke that her memories of Padme were vague and mainly based on emotions and images. Which means that she may have unintentionally used the Force after she was born or had dreams of Padme via the Force. When these fans were confronted with this explanation, they immediately dismissed it. And I never understood why. Why was that explanation so hard to consider? When Luke had first arrived on Dagobah in “STAR WARS: EPISODE V – THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”, Luke had stated that it looked familiar to him . . . despite having never been there. Both Luke and Leia have inherited their Force sensitivity, due to their father, Anakin Skywalker, who was regarded by many as being unusually strong in the Force. The saga’s movies have more than verified this.

And yet . . . many fans have continued to criticize “REVENGE OF THE SITH” for Padmé’s death. They also claimed that she should have survived the twins’ births in order to raise Leia for a few years on Alderaan, the homeworld of her fellow senator, Bail Organa. What in the hell? No parent in his or her right mind would give up one child and hand over another; unless he, she or both were were irresponsible parents. Nor do I recall the last half hour of “REVENGE OF THE SITH” being some remake of the 1961 Disney movie, “THE PARENT TRAP”. I do not recall Padmé and Anakin getting a divorce and deciding to split up their twins.

I cannot believe that so many fans believed (and still do) it was natural for Padmé to give up Luke and hand him over to the Lars family on Tattooine; and at the same time, keep Leia and take the latter with her to Alderaan. Are there any STAR WARS fans who understand what it means to be a parent? If Padme had survived childbirth, chances are she would have given up both Luke and Leia for their safety and disappeared to some remote location. Or . . . she would have kept the twins and disappeared to some remote location. Or . . . events would have played out like it did in “REVENGE OF THE SITH” – with Padmé’s death after the twins’ birth, followed with the twins being separated and handed over to different families.

But the idea of Padmé giving up one twin and handing over the other without Anakin being involved is just ludicrous to me. For her to do something like this would make her a callous mother who had selfishly preferred one child over the other. Yet . . . these fans seemed to believe that Leia’s memories of Padme via the Force is ludicrous. And I do not understand this. Leia Organa is Force sensitive . . . like her brother Luke Skywalker, her son Ben Solo and her father, Anakin Skywalker. Have so many STAR WARS actually forgotten this? Apparently so. Perhaps they simply wanted another excuse to criticize the Prequel Trilogy. Who knows?

“HARRIET” (2019) Review

“HARRIET” (2019) Review

Many people are familiar with Harriet Tubman, the former slave-turned-Underground Railroad conductor-turned-Civil War operative-turned-political activist. She has appeared as a supporting character in a handful of television productions and the leading character in two other television productions. However, a full-length feature film has finally been made about the famous historical figure. That film is called “HARRIET”.

As I had earlier stated, there have been two television productions about the famous Underground Railroad conductor. One of them was an episode from the 1963-1964 historical anthology series “THE GREAT ADVENTURE” called (1.06) “Go Down, Moses”. It starred Ruby Dee. The other television production was the 1978 miniseries “A WOMAN CALLED MOSES”, which starred Cicely Tyson. Following the latter, the Harriet Tubman figure appeared in a few television productions about slavery and the Underground Railroad until the release of this new film.

“HARRIET” basically covered Tubman’s life during a nine-year period between 1849 and 1850, along with a sequence set in 1858. The movie began in 1849 Maryland with Harriet (or Araminta “Minty” Ross Tubman, as she was known then), along with her husband John Tubman and father Ben Ross (both who were free) approached Harriet’s owner Edward Bodress with a promise made by the latter’s ancestor that her mother Harriet “Rit” Ross would be freed by the age of 45, along with their children (including Harriet). Bodress refused to acknowledge the promise. He also forbade Harriet from seeing her husband John. Brodess’s adult son Gideon caught Minty praying for God to take Mr. Brodess. The latter died shortly afterward. Alarmed by this, Gideon decided to sell Minty as punishment. Suffering from spells that began after she had been struck in the head as a child, Minty had a vision of her being free and decided to run away. She convinced John to remain behind, in case he got caught and punished for escaping with her. Minty eventually reached Philadelphia and freedom. She managed to acquire a job, thanks to the assistance of Underground Railroad abolitionist/writer William Still and a fashionable free black woman named Marie Buchanon. After a few months in Philadelphia, Minty (who renamed herself as Harriet Tubman) returned to Maryland to retrieve John and discovered that he had remarried, believing she was dead. Instead, Harriet decided to escort some family members north to freedom and began her career as a conductor for the Underground Railroad.

I have been aware of Harriet Tubman ever since I was a child of nine years old. My mother had purchased a copy of Marcy Heidish’s 1976 novel called “A Woman Called Moses”, the basis for the 1978 miniseries. But “HARRIET” marked the first time that Tubman was featured as the a character in a motion picture, let alone the leading character. So naturally, I had to see it. I had some problems with the movie. One, I could easily see that it was not historical accurate. This is not a real problem for me. After seeing two television productions that erroneously featured Harriet Tubman operating in the Ohio River Valley, the historical inaccuracies in this film struck me as a piece of cake.

One example would be the scene during her own escape in which her new owner, Gideon Bodress, and a slave patrol cornered her on a bridge. Instead of surrendering, she evaded them by jumping into the river. Needless to say, no such thing happened, since her owner (Anthony Thompson), or any slave patrol were able to capture her during her journey to Philadelphia. But . . . I was able to tolerate this scene. Somewhat. I was also a bit confused about her relationship with John Tubman in this film. Director-writer Kasi Lemmons and co-writer Gregory Allen Howard portrayed Harriet or Minty’s marriage as loving and trouble free. This has not been the case in another Hollywood production I could think of. Unfortunately, no one really knows whether the Tubmans had experienced any marital strife before her flight from Maryland. So . . . I tolerated this portrayal. However, the movie indicated that Minty had suggested John not run with her so that he would not be caught aiding a runaway. This is false. According to history, John did not want her to run in the first place. They also made it clear that John had remarried because he had assumed Minty/Harriet was dead. I do not know whether this is true or not. But it seemed as if Lemmons and Howard seemed hell bent upon portraying John in a positive light as much as possible.

But there were changes in the narrative that left me scratching my head. “HARRIET” featured Minty making her escape from Maryland in the middle of the day . . . which I found odd. The movie had her working in a garden when someone warned her that Bodress had plans to sell her to the Deep South in order to alleviate family debts. No sooner had she received the warning, one of the plantation’s foremen appeared to grab her. Minty ran and . . . hid. She hid around the plantation for hours before she contacted her family and left. What made this even more odd is that Bodress did not learn of her escape from the foreman until hours later. Which I found very odd. Historically, most slave escapes began in the middle of the night, not in the middle of the day. Why did Minty wait so long to contact her family before her escape? And why did the plantation foreman wait so long to inform Bodress? Also, she made most of her journey by night and hid during the daytime. Which would have made that daytime encounter on the bridge with Bodress somewhat implausible. I can only assume Lemmons and Howard had added it for dramatic reasons.

In the movie, Minty/Harriet did not wait very long to return to Maryland and contact her family and John. After escorting several members of her family north, she returned to Maryland and helped others escape on several occasions before the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Now this is ridiculous. One, Tubman returned to Maryland to help some relatives escape at least three to four months after the law’s passage. I find it very hard to believe that she had made so many trips to Maryland between her own escape in September 1849 and when the fugitive law was passed in September 1850. Another troubling aspect of the movie was the sequence featuring the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law. The movie featured a scene with former slaves – including Harriet – leaving en masse from the Philadelphia docks, while God knows how many slave catchers suddenly appeared to capture these fugitives. What the hell? I had felt as if I was watching a war movie with refugees escaping from an invaded city. Yes, many fugitive slaves were forced to flee the Northern states for Canada following the law’s passage. But not like THAT. Not like a scene from “CASABLANCA” or “THE WINDS OF WAR”.

I have two more complaints. Why did Lemmons and Howard added that . . . relationship between Harriet and Bodress? Why? It was bad enough that Gideon Bodress never existed. But Tubman had never recounted having to deal with the unwanted sexual interest or assault from any white man. And I got the impression that Lemmons wanted to include some watered down version of the Patsey-Edwin Epps relationship from the Oscar winning film, “12 YEARS A SLAVE” – but without the overt violence and sex. It was obvious that Bodress had never laid a violent hand on Harriet in the film, aside from the slap on the face after he had overheard her wish for his father’s death. But I find it implausible that Gideon Bodress had never attempted to sexually assault her. Even when his father was alive. Another sequence featured Northern black and white members discussing the Fugitive Slave Act passage and whether it would be safe to continue the Underground Railroad. What I disliked about this sequence is that most of them seemed to have this attitude without the organization’s conductors appearing on Southern plantations to lead them, many slaves would not be willing to escape or would not succeed in escaping. And this was far from the truth. One could argue that this scene was a perfect example of patronization from Northern abolitionists. But Harriet did not point out that slaves were capable of escaping on their own. Instead, she simply argued for the continuation of the Underground Railroad. Which simply made her equally patronizing to me.

One would think that I disliked “HARRIET”. That person would be wrong. I actually enjoyed it very much. Despite some of the narrative choices, lightweight characterizations and historical inaccuracies; “HARRIET” was both an entertaining and interesting film. One, it is nice to see Hollywood produce a feature film about the former abolitionist. “HARRIET” is a thoughtful drama about a period in United States history about which very few Americans want to discuss, let alone contemplate. Like other Hollywood productions, the movie mainly featured Tubman’s early career as an Underground Railroad conductor. I had assumed that it would also focus on her Civil War experiences, due to some publicity stills released before the film hit the theaters. But the movie only included a coda, featuring Tubman’s participation in a raid during the war. “HARRIET” was, without a doubt, about her role with the Underground Railroady.

Due to the film’s focus on Harriet’s career as an Underground Railroad conductor, it did not focus that strongly on her family life . . . with the exceptions of her attempts to lead them to freedom. Many critics have complained about this. But I can understand why Lemmons only focused on one aspect of Harriet’s life. This was a feature-length film that ran nearly two hours, not a television miniseries. Frankly, I thought it was smart of her to focus one one aspect of Harriet’s life, considering the format she had used. And she focused on one of the former slave/abolitionist’s most famous period in her life – namely that as an Underground Railroad conductor. Only through this story arc was the movie able to somewhat focus on her connection to her family. In fact, one the most interesting arcs in this narrative proved to be a sequence that featured Tubman’s attempts to rescue her sister Rachel and the latter’s children.

This focus on Harriet’s career with the Underground Railroad allowed Lemmons and Howard to reveal Harriet as action heroine she truly was. The writers’ narrative arc also featured some well staged action sequences. Among my favorite sequences are Harriet’s initial escape from Maryland and her successful rescue of Rachel’s children in the film’s second half. Both struck me as well-shot sequences that featured a great deal of more tension and drama than action. And I thought the focus on these two aspects may have allowed the sequences to be more effective without the obvious action. I also enjoyed the movie’s final action sequence in which Harriet attempted to rescue and lead her parents to freedom in the late 1850s. Not only was this sequence filled with the usual solid action for this trope, it featured a tense-filled final confrontation between Harriet and Bodress.

I certainly did not have a problem with the film’s production values. I thought Warren Alan Young did an exceptional job in re-creating antebellum America, especially in scenes that featured the Bodress plantation, Baltimore (at least I think it is), Canada and especially Philadelphia. I believe Young was ably supported by John Troll’s sharp and colorful cinematography, Wyatt Smith’s film editing, Kevin Hardison and Christina Eunji Kim’s art direction, and Marthe Pineau’s set decorations. I also have to commend Paul Tazewell for his costume designs. I thought Tazewell did an excellent job of conveying the movie’s setting and characters through his costumes, as shown in the images below:

I have a confession to make. Aside from a handful, I was not exactly blown away by the performances featured in “HARRIET”. I am not claiming that most of the performances were terrible or even mediocre. I simply found them solid . . . or serviceable. There were a few that I found slightly above being serviceable – like Janelle Monáe, Leslie Odom Jr., Zackary Momoh, Tim Guinee, Henry Hunter Hall, Joseph Lee Anderson, Jennifer Nettles and Omar J. Dorsey. But like I had said, there were a few that struck me as memorable. One of them Clarke Peters, who gave a subtle, yet warm portrayal of Harriet/Minty’s father, Ben Ross. I was also impressed by Vanessa Bell Calloway, who gave an exceptional performance as the abolitionist’s emotional and slightly edgy mother, Harriet Ritt Ross. Joe Alwyn did an excellent job of portraying Gideon Bodress as a slightly complex character without transforming the character into a one-note, moustache-twirling villain. And I really enjoyed Vondie Curtis-Hall’s subtle, yet colorful portrayal of Reverend Green, the local free black minister, who also happened to be a member of the Underground Railroad.

But the performance that really counted in “HARRIET” came from leading lady Cynthia Erivo. It is almost a miracle that Erivo managed to give such an exceptional performance as Harriet Tubman. I say this, because Lemmons and Howard had failed to fully portray Tubman as a complex human being with not only virtues, but also a few flaws. Their Tubman almost struck me as a borderline Mary Sue, due to their determination to basically portray her as an action heroine. But they did provide some intimate moments between Tubman, her family and friends. And this gave Erivo the opportunity to skillfully convey the warm, yet strong-willed individual underneath the heroic facade. This was especially apparent in scenes that featured Tubman’s desperation to put as much distance between her and the Bodress plantation as possible; her determination to return to Maryland to rescue her family; and her discovery that her husband had married another woman. Thanks to her superb performance, Erivo managed to earn both Golden Globe and Academy Award nominations for Best Actress. And if I must be brutally honest, she deserved them.

Overall, I enjoyed “HARRIET”. I have always been interested in Harriet Tubman as a historical figure and was happy to see a motion picture about her. It was not the best or most compelling biopic I have ever seen. Nor was it the best biopic about Tubman I have ever seen. But I cannot deny that thanks to Kari Lemmons and Gregory Allen Howard’s interesting screenplay, Lemmons’ solid direction and a first-rate cast led by Cynthia Erivo, “HARRIET” is a movie that I will be more than happy to watch on many occasions in the future.

 

image

Starfleet Uniforms in “STAR TREK: PICARD”

STARFLEET UNIFORMS IN “STAR TREK: PICARD”

Recently, I have come across a good number of articles on the Internet about the the upcoming CBS All Access series and recent addition to the STAR TREK franchise, “STAR TREK: PICARD”. I admit that my curiosity about the new series has led to some kind of anticipation for it during the past several months. There is one aspect of my curiosity that has been settled – namely the costume designs for the Starfleet uniforms to be featured in the new series.

According to the publicity surrounding “PICARD”, it is supposed to be set at least twenty years after the events of the 2002 film, “STAR TREK NEMESIS” . . . roughly around 2399. This period – namely the end of the 24th century and the early years of the 25th century – in Federation/Starfleet history has already been featured in television shows like “STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE” and “STAR TREK VOYAGER”. Because of my memories of the Starfleet uniform designs featured in those episodes, I realized that it did not jibe with the new uniform designs for “PICARD”, as shown in the image below:

It had occurred to me that this new uniform design for “PICARD” reminded me of the Starfleet uniforms worn between Seasons One and early Season Five on “DEEP SPACE NINE” and throughout “STAR TREK VOYAGER” (which was set in the Delta Quadrant), as shown in the images below:

 

 

I found this rather odd, considering that the time period for “DEEP SPACE NINE” and “VOYAGER” stretched from 2369 to 2377-78. Had the uniforms for Starfleet changed so little during the 20-30 years period? Not quite. Starting in 2373, Starfleet officers and crewmen wore new uniforms shown not only in Seasons Five to Seven of “DEEP SPACE NINE”, but also in various STAR TREK movies, beginning with the 1996 film, “STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT”:

 

So what happened? Did Christine Bieselin Clark, the costume designer for “PICARD” had decided to create a new twist on the uniforms featured in “VOYAGER” and the earlier seasons for “DEEP SPACE NINE”? Or had she forgotten those uniforms featured in at least two STAR TREK uniforms set in the future? What am I referring to?

There was an episode that aired in early Season Four of “DEEP SPACE NINE” called (4.03) “The Visitor” in which Captain Benjamin Sisko had disappeared due to an inversion of the Bajoran Wormhole. The episode featured how his son Jake Sisko’s life would have eventually unfolded over the years. The episode included a scene set 25 to 30 years later in which two of Captain Sisko’s officers – Julian Bashir and Jadzia Dax had visited Jake, wearing Starfleet uniforms:

 

One could dismiss this as a possible future uniform for Starfleet personnel. And yet; in the series finale for “VOYAGER” called (7.25-7.26) “Endgame”, which began in 2404 and featured an elderly Admiral Kathryn Janeway plotting a trip to the past to change the future for the crew of U.S.S. Voyager.; the same uniform design was featured:

 

Had Clark, along with creator Alex Kurtzman, and the other producers of “PICARD”, simply decided to forgo those future uniforms featured in both “DEEP SPACE NINE” and “VOYAGER”? Had Clark even seen those episodes? Or did she decided to create new Starfleet uniforms that were similar to the more familiar uniform featured in the STAR TREK television shows set during the 2370s for the sake of nostalgia? Regardless of the answer, I can only feel that this is a step down for the new series.

 

“ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN” (1948) Review

 

 

“ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN” (1948) Review

I will be the first to admit that I have been a fan of several movies starring Errol Flynn for years. Ever since I was in my early teens. However, my preference for Flynn movies tend to be for those that were released during the first five years of his Hollywood career – between 1935 and 1941. However, I recently took a chance on viewing one of his films made during the second decade of his Hollywood career – the 1948 adventure film, “ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN”.

The character of Don Juan had originated some time in the early 17th century – actually in the 1630 Spanish play by Tirso de Molina called “El burlador de Sevilla y convidado de piedra” (“The Trickster of Seville and the Stone Guest”). Only in de Molina’s play, the character of Don Juan was portrayed as an evil man who seduced women, thanks to his ability to manipulate language and disguise his appearance. Over the next century or two, Don Juan had transformed into a wealthy libertine, who devotes his life to seducing women in the belief that he had plenty of time to repent later for his sins.

In the 1948 movie directed by Vincent Sherman, Flynn’s character is a Spanish nobleman named Don Juan de Maraña, a charming libertine, whose penchant for seducing women has landed him in scandal after scandal for many years. The movie opened in the last few years of Elizabethan England, when Don Juan is caught in a diplomatic scandal after a dalliance with the British fiancée of a Spanish nobleman. An old family friend and Spain’s ambassador to England, Count de Polan, advises Don Juan to return to Spain as soon as possible. He also sends a letter to Queen Margaret of Spain and consort to King Philip III, recommending that Don Juan serves as the Spanish court’s fencing instructor to rehabilitate the latter’s reputation.

Upon his arrival in Spain, Don Juan discovers that the country is under the thumb of the king’s premier minister, Duke de Lorca, who also has the weak-willed Philip under this thumb. Don Juan also falls secretly in love with Margaret, but remains a staunchly loyal subject to both her and the king. Don Juan discovers a treacherous plan by de Lorca, who is holding the loyal Count de Polan as a secret prisoner. The Duke plans to depose the monarchs, usurp their power over Spain, and declare war on England. With the support of his friends at court, Don Juan heroically defends the Queen and the King against de Lorca and his henchmen.

If I did not know any better, I would have sworn that “ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN” reminded me of Flynn’s 1940 movie, “THE SEA HAWK”. Like the 1940 film, Flynn’s character is trying to save his country and monarch from a scheming prime minister, plotting to take control of the throne. But there are differences. One, he is in love with a married royal figure, instead of a single noblewoman. Also, the film’s narrative remains firmly land-locked, unlike the 1940 movie. And unlike “THE SEA HAWK”“ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN” has a strong underlying streak of comedy in its narrative and in its portrayal of most of the main characters.

Do I have any complaints about “ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN”? Not really. The worst I can say about the film is that it seemed to lack an edge that a good number of Flynn’s earlier swashbucklers had possessed back in the mid-to-late 1930s. Despite the plot regarding the Duke de Lorca’s oppression of Spain and his plot to assume control of the throne, the screenplay written by Herbert Dalmas, George Oppenheimer and Harry Kurnitz just seemed to lack some kind of real edge or darkness that could be found in “THE SEA HAWK” and a few of his other films between 1935 and 1941.

On the other hand, I cannot deny that “ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN” was a joy to watch. I found it to be a very entertaining film. It possessed a strong comedic streak. Some of Flynn’s other adventure films had their moments of comedy, but a part of me began to wonder if “ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN” was basically a comedy-adventure. It certainly seemed so. And you know what? The strong comedic element really worked. I believe the topic of Don Juan’s womanizing behavior provided a great deal of strong humor for this film.

Comedy or not, “ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN” provided some good dramatic moments – especially in scenes featuring the main character’s interactions with Queen Margaret and the Duke de Lorca. And since this is an Errol Flynn swashbuckler, I have to bring up the film’s action scenes. The movie did feature its share of action scenes, but I can only think of two that really impressed me. One featured Don Juan’s fencing students fighting de Lorca’s men around the beginning of the last action scene. The other happened to be Don Juan’s main duel against the Duke de Lorca. It is fortunate that both Flynn and Robert Douglas were experienced on screen/stage fencers. Mind you, I still regard Flynn’s duel against Henry Daniell’s double in “THE SEA HAWK” as my favorite sword fight to feature the Australian actor. But I cannot deny that both he and Douglas managed to provide a first-rate duel in the movie’s final action scene.

The performances in “ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN” were excellent. The movie provided either solid or first-rate supporting performances from Romney Brent, Robert Warwick, Helen Westcott, Fortunio Bonanova Jerry Austin, Mary Stuart and Douglas Kennedy. I was surprised to find Ann Rutherford, who was a MGM contract player in the late 1930s and early 1940s in this film. She gave a funny, yet sly performance as Dona Elena, the amorous older sister of one of Don Juan’s students. Una O’Connor, a veteran of Flynn’s two earlier films, provided a breath of comedic fresh air as the maid of one of Flynn’s conquests. I was also surprised to find future television star Raymond Burr as Captain Alverez, one of the Duke de Lorca’s villainous henchmen. I thought he gave a very solid performance. Robert Douglas, who must have made a career of portraying villains, was very effective as the traitorous and scheming Duke de Lorca. “ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN” proved to be the last of 13 or 14 movies that Alan Hale co-starred with Flynn. Not only did Hale give a highly entertaining performance as Leporello, Don Juan’s personal servant; both he and Flynn managed to continue their great screen chemistry they had maintained for over a decade.

I have to be honest. I thought Viveca Lindfors gave a strong and excellent performance as the high-minded and no-nonsense Queen Margaret. But for some reason, she seemed out-of-place in this movie and as Flynn’s co-star. I think her presence in this film would have worked if there had been a lot less humor in the story. I could say that portraying Don Juan de Maraña seemed like a walk in the park for Errol Flynn. He seemed to portray the role so effortlessly. I suspect that certain film historians would be inclined to dismiss his performance . . . as they are inclined to dismiss his talent as an actor altogether. But I must admit that Don Juan has become one of my favorite Flynn roles. Mind you, I thought he handled his dramatic scenes with Viveca Lindfors and Robert Douglas with great skill. But I found Flynn’s comedic acting in this movie to be exquisite. This was especially apparent in scenes in which Don Juan had expressed annoyance by the unwanted attention of enamored women or mild resentment by his inability to put his seductive reputation behind him.

Overall, I really enjoyed “ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN”. I thought director Vincent Sherman did an excellent job of using Herbert Dalmas, George Oppenheimer and Harry Kurnitz’s screenplay to create an adventurous tale that also included romance, intrigue, action and a great deal of humor. And Sherman also worked well with a top-notched cast led by the talented and woefully underappreciated Errol Flynn.

“My Problem With Kylo Ren”

“MY PROBLEM WITH KYLO REN”

Kylo Ren has to be THE MOST overrated character I have ever seen in the Star Wars saga. I am amazed by how so many fans have gone out of their way to put this guy on a pedestal. My personal disgust for this worship has nothing to do with him being portrayed as a villain. There are plenty of other villains – within the saga or not – that I actually find interesting. My problem with Kylo Ren is that I do not find him either interesting or well written.

I will start this article with a question. What was the reason behind Kylo Ren aka Ben Solo embracing evil? What was it? Director J.J. Abrams had hinted in “STAR WARS: EPISODE VII – THE FORCE AWAKENS” that either the film’s main villain, Snoke, had influenced or mesmerized him; or his parents, Leia Organa and Han Solo, did not raise him properly. In “STAR WARS: EPISODE VIII – THE LAST JEDI”, writer-director Rian Johnson had suggested that Ben’s uncle, Jedi Master Luke Skywalker, had contemplated killing him out of fear that Snoke was influencing him. Has the franchise finally made up its mind regarding the background of Ben’s moral turn? It certainly does not seem like it to me.

However, it does seem as if Lucasfilm under Kathleen Kennedy is trying to go out of its way to find a reason to blame others for Kylo Ren’s descent into evil, instead of blaming the man himself. The Sequel Trilogy’s leading lady, a gifted Force user and former scavenger named Rey, had questioned (a bare chested) Kylo Ren in “THE LAST JEDI” on why he had murdered his father in the previous film. Rian Johnson failed to provide the young villain with a convincing answer. Instead, Ren had responded that he had killed Han to cut out any of his remaining emotional attachment . . . and nothing else. I found this odd, considering that he did not bother to personally kill Leia in “THE LAST JEDI”, when presented with the opportunity. Kylo Ren’s response to Rey’s question had struck me as the biggest piece of bullshit from a Star Wars movie that had ever reached my ears. His response struck me as vague and frustrating. Worse, Johnson had allowed Rey to accept that answer and not bother to question Kylo Ren even further or demand that he clarify his comments. And after she had learned about Ren’s last encounter with his uncle Luke, Rey had never asked him about or mentioned his murders of Luke’s students. Not once. Talk about poor writing.

There are some who claim that Kylo Ren is a better developed character than his grandfather, Anakin Skywalker. Each person is entitled to his or her own opinion about any work of art or entertainment. But every time I read or hear this claim, I find myself rolling my eyes in disgust or laughing. Exactly why is Ben Solo better developed than Anakin? Because he adhered to the “delinquent” moniker more than Anakin ever did? I realize that both J.J. Abrams and Rian Johnson tried to infuse some kind of ambiguity into the Kylo Ren character. But honestly . . . he simply struck me as some kind of emotional man child with the maturity of someone half of his age, who engages in a combination of violence and temper tantrums whenever he does not get his way. And Kylo Ren is supposed to be around 30 years old in this trilogy. I realize that Lucasfilm is trying to portray him as a . . . you know what? I have no idea what Lucasfilm is trying to achieve with this character. Not one damn idea.

Kylo Ren had been born in a stable family situation. He certainly was not a slave like Anakin. He was never an enslaved kidnap victim like Rey’s friend, the former stormtrooper Finn. He was never orphaned and forced to work for a tyrannical crime lord like Han Solo. He was never simply orphaned like Resistance figher, Rose Tico. And he was never abandoned and later orphaned like Rey.

Kylo Ren aka Ben Solo was the son of respected politician/military hero Leia Organa (Skywalker) and another military hero, former smuggler Han Solo. He had a privileged upbringing. The first two Sequel Trilogy movies had never made it clear than Leia and Han had ignored him during his upbringing. It was established that the pair had sent a younger Ben Solo to train in the ways of the Force under his uncle Luke when they began to harbor suspicions that he was being drawn under the influence of the First Order’s evil leader, Snoke. Just go with me here.
Apparently, in the eyes of Lucasfilm and Abrams, this was why Leia and Han were neglectful parents.

This is the reason why Abrams and Lucasfilm have labeled Han and Leia as bad parents? This is one of the reasons why Ben had become the evil Force user Kylo Ren? And exactly how did Snoke maanged to gain any influence over young Ben in the first place? What did the First Order leader do? Brainwash him with the Force? I also noticed that Luke’s near attempt to kill Kylo Ren led the latter to kill the former’s other Jedi students, leading him to a path of evil. At least according to Rian Johnson. So . . . Kylo Ren never considered ratting out Luke to his parents, which would have been a very effective way in tearing apart the trio? Between Abrams using Leia, Han and Snoke as Kylo Ren’s scapegoat for his moral fall and Johnson using Luke as the scapegoat . . . all I see are Lucasfilm’s conflicting reasons for the character’s downfall.

To me, Ben Solo aka Kylo Ren is basically a narrow-minded and arrogant man from an over privileged background. He has the mental capacity of a seventeen year-old and like the franchise itself, blames others for whatever misery he experiences and his moral downfall. What makes this even more ridiculous is that his character is roughly around thirty years old in this trilogy . . . at least a decade or two older than his grandfather was in the Prequel Trilogy. And characters like Kylo Ren (without the powers) are a dime a dozen in both the film/television industries and in literature.

And there is the problem of Kylo Ren’s relationship with the trilogy’s leading lady, Rey. This relationship with Rey has proven to be one of the most abhorrently written ones that I have seen on film . . . period. The idea that Rey would be remotely attracted to Kylo Ren JUST A FEW DAYS after being kidnapped, nearly mind raped and nearly killed by him is repellent to my very core. What I find equally repellent is that many fans and critics have viewed this aspect of the relationship as “sexy” or “romantic”. In fact, a critic for “TIME” magazine had regarded Kylo Ren’s attempted torture of Rey in “THE FORCE AWAKENS” as “sexual energy”. In fact, here is the exact quote from the article:

“In one of the movie’s finest moments, Ren—unmasked and intense—engages Rey in a major stare-down, an unholy duel between the light side of the Force and the dark. The sexual energy between them is strange and unsettling, like a theremin sonata only they can hear.”

Either critic Stephanie Zacharek was into the rape fantasy trope or perhaps she might be a racist who saw a potential romance between a young white woman and the white male villain who was trying to torture her via mind rape; instead of the friendship between the woman and the young black man she had befriended. And I cannot help wonder if Ms. Zacharek, along with these other critics and fans would have felt the same if Finn had been portrayed by a white actor, instead of one of African descent. I really do. In the end, many of these fans and critics (many of them white women) who either want Rey to end the trilogy with no romantic interest or with an immature and violent man child, who is portrayed by a white actor.  And guess what?  These fans got their wish after all.  With some incredibly bad writing, Lucasfilm and J.J. Abrams rushed the “Reylo” relationship in the last third of the trilogy’s final film, “STAR WARS: EPISODE IX – THE RISE OF SKYWALKER”in an attempt to plagiarize the Luke Skywalker-Anakin Skywalker (Darth Vader) relationship from the 1983 movie, “STAR WARS: EPISODE VI – RETURN OF THE JEDI”.  Abrams and Lucasiflm were so intent upon plagiarizing the 1983 movie that it actually brought the main villain from the Original and Prequel Trilogies – Sheev Palpatine – back from the dead.  However there is one difference . . . “Reylo” ended with a fatal kiss that struck me as one of the most forced moments in the history of the Star Wars franchise.

In the end, Kylo Ren aka Ben Solo struck me as another over privileged man child who resorts to violence when his sense of entitlement is threatened. As I have pointed out, there have been similar characters in other movie and television productions. And there are people like him who do exist. My problem with this is that I do not find this type of characterization particularly original. Worse, his backstory seemed to be surrounded by a great deal of vague, rushed and uneven writing from J.J. Abrams and Rian Johnson. Adam Driver, who portrays the character, is a first-rate actor. I have seen him in other movies that featured him in what I believe are better roles. If he ever decides to turn his back on the STAR WARS franchise following the release of the Sequel Trilogy’s third film, “THE RISE OF SKYWALKER”, I would not blame him. Not by a long shot.

“DARK PHOENIX” (2019) Review

 

“DARK PHOENIX” (2019) Review

I feel sorry for the old X-MEN Movie Universe. Well . . . almost. For a franchise that began on a high note, it certainly ended with a whimper. At least from a financial point-of-view. And that whimper proved to be the 2019 movie, “DARK PHOENIX”.

Actually, “DARK PHOENIX” is not the final film of this franchise. The last film is scheduled to be released in the spring of 2020. As for “DARK PHOENIX”, it is the twelfth film associated with the franchise that was associated with the old 20th Century Fox Studios. It is also the second movie in the franchise, after 2005’s “X-MEN: THE LAST STAND”, to adapt Marvel Comics’ 1976-1980 comic book series of the same title.

The movie begins in 1975 when nine year-old Jean Grey and her parents get involved in a car accident that leaves her as the sole survivor. Jean’s situation eventually attracts the attention of Professor Charles Xavier, who enrolls her as one of his students at the Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters. The story jumps to 1992, nine years after the events of “X-MEN: APOCALYPSE”. Some of Xavier’s former students have become the next generation of the X-Men, with Mystique aka Raven as the team’s leader in the field and the Professor receiving their glory from the public and media. The U.S. President summons the team to assist NASA into rescuing the space shuttle Endeavour, which is critically damaged by a solar flare-like energy during its mission. While the X-Men save all of the astronauts, Jean is stranded and is struck by the energy, which she absorbs into her body to save the X-Men’s aircraft from destruction. Jean survives the event and her psychic powers are greatly amplified by the energy. Her powers become uncontrollable and she later accidentally unleashes her power on the mutants celebrating the success of their mission at Xavier’s school. Even worse, Jean’s enhanced powers attract the attention of a group of alien shape shifters called the D’Bari, whose home planet had been destroyed by the energy force. They want to use the energy (or Jean) to wipe out Earth’s inhabitants and re-shape the planet to resemble their own.

Eventually, Jean and the other X-Men learn that Xavier had placed mental walls in Jean’s mind as a little girl to protect her psychic mind from experiencing trauma from her childhood accident. Jean’s enhanced power destroys the mental walls and the trauma slowly returns, filling her with desire, rage, and pain. Jean then travels to her childhood hometown after finding out that her father is still alive and learned that he abandoned her. Jean recovers her complete memory of the car accident and remembers that her post-traumatic stress disorder had originated with the childhood car accident in which she had inadvertently caused by rendering her mother unconscious at the wheel with her telepathy. When the X-Men arrive to take Jean home but she injures Peter Maximoff aka Quicksilver and accidentally kills Raven aka Mystique before disappearing. And her actions led to the U.S. Army searching for her and willing to imprison other mutants at the government’s order.

Many X-Men fans and critics had really dumped on this movie when it first hit the theaters. I am not going to examine why this film was so unpopular. I can only discuss how I felt about it. One, it was not an original film. In many ways, “DARK PHOENIX” almost struck me as a remake of the 2006 movie, “THE X-MEN: THE LAST STAND”. Or perhaps I should say . . . a remake of the Dark Phoenix story arc, but with slightly different details. I suspect that Kinsberg and the X-Men producers wanted to use the changed timeline from “X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST” as an excuse to re-write the Dark Phoenix story arc from 2006. Personally, I feel it would have been more original of them to completely leave that story arc alone and utilize another narrative for the film.

I also found the enhancement of Jean’s powers via some alien energy wave not only unoriginal, but unnecessary. Why did Simon Kinberg even thought it was necessary to enhance Jean’s powers? She had displayed an uber level of power when she killed En Sabah Nur aka Apocalypse in “X-MEN: APOCALYPSE”. I can only assume the solar flare energy situation was created by Kinsberg to introduce the D’Bari.  Speaking of the latter, I noticed that their goal to destroy humanity and settle on Earth as its new home bore a strong resemblance to General Zod’s plan in 2013’s “MAN OF STEEL”. Look, I do not mind that Kinsberg had used aliens as the movie’s Big Bad for this film. But did he have to recycle a plot from a D.C. Comics movie? Or worse, create this energetic force to enhance Jean Grey’s powers, when they really did not require to be enhanced in the first place?

Despite the film’s lack of originality, I must admit that I actually managed to enjoy “DARK PHOENIX”. I noticed that Kinsberg’s screenplay featured a more in-depth exploration of how Jean’s enhanced powers had made an impact on her life and on those in her life. I also enjoyed how the actions of certain characters in regard to Jean had resulted in major consequences for many characters. I found it interesting how Jean found herself isolated by her fellow mutants and a lot of the blame could be tossed at Charles Xavier’s feet. He did not use his telepathy to contain her power – especially since he had encouraged her to use it to defeat En Sabah Nur in the 2016 film. Instead, he had used his telepathy to suppress her memories of her parents’ death and her emotional reaction to it . . . instead of simply helping her deal with a tragic loss. Xavier had used a short cut. And when the alien energy removed his mental blocks on Jean’s mind, tragic consequences followed. Xavier did not pay the consequences of his actions with death, but he did pay a heavy price.

Ironically, Erik Lensherr aka Magneto had no interest in exploiting Jean’s new powers, as he had done in the 2006 movie. He was more concerned in protecting Genosha, the refugee island for mutants he had founded and demanded that she leave after the U.S. Army appeared. Unfortunately, Magneto’s desire to protect those mutants under his leadership transformed into vengeance when he learned about Mystique’s death from a grieving Hank McCoy aka Beast. I found it interesting that Hank had never bothered to inform Erik that Mystique’s death had been an accident on Jean’s part. He was angry at Charles for the latter’s handling of Jean and decided to use the latter as a moral scapegoat. And unfortunately, the vengeful actions of both men ended up exacerbating an already dangerous situation. By the time the movie shifted to Manhattan, three forces (including the U.S. Army) were trying to contain, exploit or destroy Jean. Only a fourth group seemed concerned with Jean – namely the X-Men. And for once, Xavier WAS NOT the catalyst for the team’s attempt to rescue Jean. Her fellow team members – led by Scott Summers aka Cyclops and Ororo Munroe aka Storm – led this endeavor.

If I must be honest, most of the film’s visual effects did not blow my mind. At best, I found them serviceable. I could also say the same about Mauro Fiore’s cinematography. However, there was one particular scene in which the film’s visuals and Fiore’s photography really blew my mind. It involved the major clash that eventually evolved between the X-Men, the mutants under Erik Lensherr and Hank McCoy, the U.S. Army and the D’Bari. I have become increasingly weary of final action sequences shot at night over the past decade, thanks to the second “LORD OF THE RINGS” movie. I must say that I was more impressed by Fiore and the visual team’s work in this particular sequence, which began on the streets of Manhattan and ended on a train headed out of the city. And their work was more than ably supported by excellent editing from Lee Smith.

I certainly had no problems with the performances featured in “DARK PHOENIX”. The movie featured solid performances from the likes of Evan Peters, Kodi Smit Mc-Phee, Ato Essandoh and Brian D’Arcy James. Another solid performance came from Michael Fassbender, whose portrayal of Erik Lensherr struck me as skillful, but not particularly memorable. I do not think Kinsberg’s screenplay gave the actor something new or unusual to work with. At first, it seemed as if Alexandra Shipp was doomed to endure another movie in which her character, Ororo Munroe aka Storm, nearly became a background character. Thankfully, the movie’s second half gave Shipp an opportunity to convey Storm’s resilient nature with more dialogue and action scenes. I especially enjoyed that moment when Storm and Cyclops made it clear to Xavier their determination to help Jean.

Vuk proved to be the second time I have ever seen Jessica Chastain portray a villain. And I thought she gave an interesting and slightly . . . bizarre performance as the D’Bari’s manipulative leader, who seemed focused on seducing Jean for the latter’s powers. Nicholas Hoult surprised me by his skillful portrayal of the uglier side of Hank McCoy’s nature. This was especially apparent in scenes that reflected McCoy’s desire to avenge Mystique’s death. Speaking of the latter, Jennifer Lawrence’s appearance barely spanned half of the movie. I thought she gave a solid performance. But there was one scene in which she truly impressed me. It featured Mystique’s sardonic rant against Xavier for using the X-Men as his personal publicity campaign. I was more impressed by Tye Sheridan’s portrayal of Scott Summers aka Cyclops in this film than I was in the 2016 movie. Sheridan’s Cyclops became a more mature and determined personality. That maturity was expressed in Scott’s continuing love for Jean and his determination to help her as much as possible.

I think “DARK PHOENIX” marked the first time I can truly recall Charles Xavier being portrayed in a negative light . . . and I enjoyed it. This has nothing to do with any dislike of Xavier. But I cannot deny that I found James McAvoy’s portrayal of his character very interesting . . . and new. What I really found interesting is that Xavier’s uglier side was not briefly manifested in the revelation of the telepathic blocks he had placed in Jean’s head. That revelation only deepened Xavier’s arrogance and blindness. But audiences first saw signs of these traits, thanks to his argument with Mystique over his exploitation of the X-Men team for personal glory. Some of the franchise’s fans felt that Sophie Turner was not up to portraying the “Dark Phoenix” aspect of Jean Grey’s character. I suppose they were expecting a re-play of Famke Janssen’s portrayal. Even if they were not, I still managed to enjoy Turner’s performance. The main reason why I did was because Turner did not try to repeat the older actress’ performance. Thanks to Kinsberg’s script, Turner was able to put a different spin of Jean’s evolution into the Dark Phoenix . . . one that did not paint her as villainous. I also felt that Turner did an excellent job of conveying how Xavier’s mental blocks had led Jean to experience post traumatic stress (PST) and loss of control of her powers.

I cannot explain why “DARK PHOENIX” proved to be a box office failure. And if I must be honest, I am not interested in expressing my opinion on this topic. The movie was not perfect. And frankly, I wonder if it was a good idea to use the shifted timeline from “X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST” as an excuse to create a new version of the Dark Phoenix story arc. But I cannot deny that I enjoyed the movie. I thought Kinsberg had created a solid piece of cinematic entertainment with a screenplay that did not become a convoluted mess and first-rate performances from a cast led by James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender and Sophie Turner.

image

“THE LAST TYCOON” (1976) Review

“THE LAST TYCOON” (1976) Review

What is there to say about the 1976 movie, “THE LAST TYCOON”? Well . . . it was adapted from F. Scott Fitzgerald’s last novel, which had remained at the time of his death in 1941. It proved to be the last movie directed by Elia Kazan. And it starred Robert De Niro.

Actually, there is more to say about “THE LAST TYCOON”. It told the story of Monroe Stahr, Fitzgerald’s literary version of the legendary Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer production chief, Irving Thalberg. Stahr served as production chief of a major Hollywood studio in the mid-1930s. The movie unfolds with Stahr juggling his time with emotional actors and directors, and several frustrated screenwriters. Stahr also deals with more pressing conflicts like the newly created Writers Guild of America, a union organizer from the East Coast and the growing resentment his boss and head of the studio, Pat Brady. During all this activity and growing turmoil, Stahr finds himself torn between two young women. One of those women is Brady’s only child, a recent college graduate named Cecilia who is infatuated with Stahr. The other is an Irish beauty with a troubled past named Kathleen Moore, with whom Stahr falls in love and eventually obsessed. Unfortunately for Stahr, Kathleen is engaged to another man.

The production values for “THE LAST TYCOON” struck me as first rate. Well . . . almost. I enjoyed Victor J. Kemper’s sharp and colorful photography. I also enjoyed Jack T. Collis’ art direction, which I thought effectively conveyed the locations of the Hollywood community during the 1930s. But I feel that Collis’ art direction would not have been as effective without Gene Callahan’s production designs. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences must have also been impressed by both Collis and Callahan. The two men ended up receiving Oscar nominations for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration. On the other hand, I am not surprised that Anna Hill Johnstone and Anthea Sylbert’s costume designs had failed to win any nominations. Do not get me wrong. They were not terrible. But . . . I did notice that like some of the hairstyles worn by the actresses in the film, the fashion styles of the 1970s tend to creep in.

I certainly had no problems with the movie’s performances. Well . . . with most of them. May I be frank? Robert De Niro seemed to be an embodiment of Monroe Stahr . . . or should I say Irving Thalberg? De Niro did an excellent job in conveying Stahr’s obsessive nature – whether it was creating movies or falling in love with Kathleen Moore. A second standout performance came from Theresa Russell, who portrayed Cecilia Brady, the daughter of the studio chief. Russell did an excellent job in portraying both Cecilia’s passion for Stahr and her no-nonsense intelligence. Robert Mitchum was superb as Pat Brady, the studio chief who took his daughter’s intelligence for granted and who resented Stahr’s genius as a movie producer.

Both Tony Curtis and Jeanne Moreau gave excellent performances as Rodriguez and Didi, two Hollywood stars, whose egos and insecurities threaten a film they are currently shooting. Jack Nicholson provided a strong, yet quiet presence as an East Coast union official visiting Hollywood to organize the industry’s employees. The movie also featured solid performances from Ray Milland, Dana Andrews, Donald Pleasance, Peter Strauss, Tige Andrews and Anjelica Huston. “THE LAST TYCOON” also featured Ingrid Boulting as Kathleen Moore, the woman who captured Monroe Stahr’s heart. How did I feel about her? Hmmmm . . . she was not a terrible actress. But I was not particularly impressed by her performance. She seemed to spend most of the movie trying to iconic or remote . . . a 1970s version of Greta Garbo. And it did not work for me.

For me, the real problem with “THE LAST TYCOON” was its narrative. Quite frankly, I thought it sucked. Mind you, I thought the film’s explorations of life at movie studio in the 1930s seemed interesting. What made this work is that most of this exploration was told from Monroe Stahr’s point-of-view. I cannot deny that the film’s peek into the old Hollywood studio system was interesting. But instead of fashioning a narrative from this topic or at least from studio politics, screenwriter Harold Pinter had decided revolve the film’s plot around the Monroe Stahr-Kathleen Moore love story. I can understand why he did this. F. Scott Fitzgerald did the same in the unfinished novel. The problem was that Stahr’s romance with Kathleen bored the hell out of me. One, the entire romance almost seemed on-sided on Stahr’s part. And two, both Robert De Niro and Ingrid Boulting lacked any chemistry whatsoever. Every time the pair shared the screen, I found myself struggling to stay awake. Perhaps Pinter could have done a better job in connecting the Stahr-Moore romance with studio politics . . . who knows? Unfortunately, I felt as if I was watching a movie with two different narratives that barely connected – and with the major (and boring) subplot overshadowing the minor one. Pity.

Would I ever watch “THE LAST TYCOON” again? I honestly cannot answer that question. It is a beautiful looking film, thanks to men like Jack T. Collis and Gene Callahan. I also cannot deny the film’s peek into the old Hollywood studio system and politics managed to somewhat fascinate me. Unfortunately, the movie was dominated by a dull love story that bored me senseless. So, would I ever watch this movie again? Right now, I would say no. I do not think so.

 

Image result for the last tycoon 1976 animated gifs

“All Aboard the Orient Express”

2863027809_ec8c8b49c8_o

Below is a look at two major movies and a television movie that featured journeys aboard the famed Orient Express:

 

“ALL ABOARD THE ORIENT EXPRESS”

I will be the first to admit that I am not one of those who demand that a novel, a movie or a television production to be historically accurate. Not if history gets in the way of the story. But there is an anal streak within me that rears its ugly head, sometimes. And that streak would usually lead me to judge just how accurate a particular production or novel is.

Recently, I watched three movies that featured a journey aboard the legendary train, the Orient Express. Perhaps I should be a little more accurate. All three movies, “MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS” (1974)“MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS” (2010) and “FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE” (1963) featured a famous route that came into existence nearly a year following World War I called the Simplon Orient Express. The original route for the Orient Express stretched from Paris to Istanbul via Strasbourg, Munich, Vienna, Budapest and Bucharest. Then in 1919, Compagnie Internationale des Wagons-Lits introduced a more southerly route, due to the opening of the Simplon Tunnel. This route stretched between Paris and Istanbul, via Lausanne, Milan, Venice, Belgrade and Sofia. Writers Agatha Christie and Ian Fleming made the Simplon Orient Express route famous thanks to their novels, “Murder on the Orient Express” (1934) and “From Russia With Love” (1957). And the movie adaptations of these novels increased the route’s fame.

Both Christie and Fleming’s novels featured the Simplon Orient Express’ route from Istanbul to Yugoslavia. There are reasons why their stories do not stretch further west to as far as at least France. In “Murder on the Orient Express”, the train became stuck in a snowdrift in Yugoslavia and detective Hercule Poirot spent the rest of the novel trying to solve the murder of an American passenger. And in “From Russia With Love”, British agent James Bond and his companion, Tatiana Romanova, made it as far as either Italy or France. The 1974 and 2010 adaptations of Christie’s novel, more or less remained faithful to the latter as far as setting is concerned. However, EON Production’s 1963 adaptation of Fleming’s novel allowed Bond and Tatiana to escape from the train before it could cross the Yugoslavia-Italy border.

While watching the three movies, I discovered that their portrayals of the Simplon Orient Express route were not completely accurate. I can imagine the thoughts running through the minds of many, declaring “Who cares?”. And I believe they would be right to feel this way. But I thought it would be fun to look into the matter. Before I do, I think I should cover a few basics about this famous train route from Istanbul to Paris-Calais.

During its heyday, the Orient Express usually departed from Istanbul around 11:00 p.m. Following the rise of the Iron Curtain after World War II, the Orient Express extended it route to stops in Greece in order to avoid the Soviet-controlled countries. The only Communist country it passed through was Yugoslavia. When the train became the slower Direct Orient Express in 1962, it usually departed Istanbul around 4:15 p.m. I do not know whether a restaurant car and/or a salon “Pullman” car was attached to the Direct Orient Express when it departed Istanbul between 1962 and 1977. One last matter. In the three adaptations of the two novels, the Orient Express usually made a significant stop at Belgrade. It took the Orient Express, during its heyday, at least 23 to 24 hours to travel from Istanbul to Belgrade.

Let us now see how accurately the two “MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS” movies and the 1963 “FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE” flick accurately portray traveling aboard the Simplon Orient Express (or Direct Orient Express) on film. I will begin with the “MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS”, the 1974 adaptation of Agatha Christie’s novel.

 

finney-gielgud

“MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS” (1974)

Following the conclusion of a successful case for the British Army somewhere in the Middle East, Belgian-born detective is on his way home to London, via a train journey aboard the famed Orient Express. When an American businessman named Samuel Rachett is murdered during the second night aboard the train, Poirot is asked by his friend and director of the Compagnie Internationale des Wagons-Lits, Senor Bianchi, to investigate the crime.

In this adaptation directed by Sidney Lumet, the Simplon Orient Express that left Istanbul did so at 9:00 at night. The movie also included a dining car attached to the train. One scene featured a chef examining food being loaded onto the train. This scene is erroneous. According to the The Man in Seat 61 website, there was no dining car attached to the train when it left Istanbul. A dining car was usually attached at Kapikule on the Turkish/Bulgarian border, before it was time to serve breakfast. The movie also featured a salon car or a “Pullman”, where Hercule Poirot interrogated most of the passengers of the Istanbul-Calais car.

 

oe2

 

LE-CRIME-DE-L-ORIENT-EXPRESS-MURDER-ON-THE-ORIENT-EXPRESS-1974_portrait_w858

 

According to the “Seat 61” site, there was no salon “Pullman” car attached to the train east of Trieste, Italy. Christie needed the presence of the car for dramatic purposes and added one into her novel. The producers of the 1974 movie did the same. At least the producers of the 1974 used the right dark blue and cream-colored car for the Pullman. More importantly, they used the right dark blue cars for the train’s sleeping coaches, as shown in the image below:

 

oe3

 

In the movie, the Simplon Orient Express reached Belgrade 24 hours after its departure from Istanbul. For once, the movie was accurate. Somewhere between Vinkovci and Brod, the Orient Express ended up snowbound and remained there until the end of the story.

 

 

6a00e5500c8a2a88330133f413d531970b-800wi

“MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS” (2010)

This adaptation of Agatha Christie’s novel first aired on Britain’s ITV network in 2010. The television movie started with Hercule Poirot berating a British Army officer caught in a devastating lie. After the officer commits suicide, Poirot ends up in Istanbul, where he and a British couple witness the stoning of an adulterous Turkish woman. Eventually, the couple and Poirot board the Orient Express, where the latter finds himself investigating the murder of an American passenger.

I do not know what time the Simplon Orient Express departed Istanbul in this adaptation. The movie never indicated a particular time. This version also featured a brief scene with a chef examining food being loaded aboard a dining car. As I previously mentioned, a dining car was not attached until Kapikule. The movie did feature Poirot and some of the Istanbul-Calais car passengers eating breakfast the following morning. In this scene, I noticed a major blooper. Car attendant Pierre Michel was shown serving a dish to Poirot in the dining car. Note the images below:

 

pierre michel1
Pierre Michel greets Poirot and M. Bouc before they board the train

 

pierre michel2
Pierre serves breakfast to Poirot

 

Why on earth would a car attendant (or train conductor, as he was called in the 1934 novel) act as a waiter in the dining car? Like the 1974 movie, the ITV adaptation also featured a salon “Pullman” attached to the train, east of Italy. In fact, they did more than use one salon “Pullman”. As I had stated earlier, the westbound Simplon Orient Express usually acquired a salon “Pullman” after its arrival in Trieste. But in this adaptation, the producers decided to use the dark blue and cream-colored “Pullman” cars for the entire train as shown in these images:

 

oe1

 

IMG_7341

 

This is completely in error. As I had stated earlier, the Orient Express usually featured a dark-blue and cream-colored salon “Pullman” between Italy and Paris. But it also featured the dark-blue and cream-colored seating “Pullmans” between Calais and Paris. There is no way that the Orient Express leaving Istanbul would entirely consist of the blue and cream “Pullman” cars.

However, the train did arrive at Belgarde at least 24 hours after its departure from Istanbul. Like the other movie, the train ended up snowbound between Vinkovci and Brod and remained there until the last scene. However, I am confused by the presence of the police standing outside of the train in the last scene. Poirot and the other passengers should have encountered the police, following the train’s arrival in Brod, not somewhere in the middle of the Yugoslavian countryside.

 

 

image

“MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS” (2017)

In this adaptation of Christie’s 1934 novel, in which Kenneth Branagh directed and starred, Poirot solves a theft at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The detective hopes to rest in Istanbul after traveling there via the Mediterranean and Agean Seas, but a telegram summons him to London for a case and he boards the Orient Simplon Orient Express with the help of young Monsieur Bouc, a director of the Compagnie Internationale des Wagons-Lits. When an American passenger named Samuel Rachett is found stabbed to death following his second night aboard the Orient Express, Poirot is asked to solve his murder.

 

 

This movie featured the departure of the Simplon Orient Express around 7:00 p.m., instead of eleven o’clock. However, this is probably the only adaptation of Christie’s novel that featured the strongest similarity to the real Sirkeci Terminal in Istanbul, the train’s eastern terminus.

However, I also noticed that passengers boarded via the dining car, at the tail end of the train. That is correct. This adaptation also has a dining car attached to the Orient Express in Istanbul, instead of having it attached at Kapikule, the Turkish-Bulgarian border crossing. And unlike the previous adaptations, the dining car and the lounge car are dark blue like the sleeping compartments, instead of a color mixture of dark-blue and cream-colored. Which was an error.

 

 

The movie did not feature a stop in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. It did, however, featured a brief stop at Vinkovci, before it encountered a snow drift, later in the night. Since it was definitely at night when the train stopped at Vinkovci, no error had been committed. Especially since it was not quite dark when the train departed from Istanbul. And the journey between Istanbul and Belgrade lasted roughly 24 hours. At the end of the film, Poirot departed from the Orient Express at Brod. This is also appropriate, since the train had been snowbound somewhere between Vinkovci and Brod in the novel. More importantly, unlike the 2010 adaptation, Poirot gave his false resolution to Rachett’s murder to the police … in Brod and not in the spot where the train had been trapped.

 

 

007FRWL_423

“FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE” (1963)

Ian Fleming’s tale begins with the terrorist organization, SPECTRE, plotting the theft of the KGB’s a cryptographic device from the Soviets called the Lektor, in order to sell it back to them, while exacting revenge on British agent James Bond for killing their agent, Dr. No. After Bond successfully steals the Lektor from the Soviet consulate in Istanbul, he, defector Tatiana Romanova and MI-6 agent Kerim Bey board the Orient Express for a journey to France and later, Great Britain.

While I found this adaptation of Ian Fleming’s 1957 novel extremely enjoyable, I found myself puzzled by the movie’s portrayal of Bond’s journey aboard the Orient Express. It seemed so . . . off. In the movie; the Orient Express conveying Bond, his traveling companions and SPECTRE assassin “Red” Grant; departed Istanbul somewhere between 3:00 and 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon. The train departed Istanbul around nine o’clock at night, in Fleming’s novel. Mind you, the novel was set in the 1950s and the movie, set in the early 1960s, which meant that its departure in the movie was pretty close to the 4:15 pm departure of the Direct Orient Express train that operated between 1962 and 1977. I do not recall seeing a dining car attached to the train, during its departure in the movie, so I cannot comment on that. But after the train’s departure, the movie’s portrayal of Bond’s Orient Express journey proved to be mind boggling.

The main problem with “FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE” is that Bond’s journey proved to be the fastest I have ever witnessed, either on film or in a novel. It took the train at least three-to-four hours to reach Belgrade, following its departure from Istanbul. One, it usually took the Orient Express nearly 24 hours to reach Belgrade during its heyday. During the first ten-to-fifteen years of the Cold War, it took the Orient Express a little longer to reach Belgrade, due to it being re-routed through Northern Greece in an effort to avoid countries under Soviet rule. This was made clear in Fleming’s novel. But the 1963 movie followed the famous train’s original eastbound route . . . but at a faster speed. After killing Grant, Bond and Tatiana left the train before it reached the Yugoslavian-Italian border. Bond’s journey from Istanbul to that point took at least 15 hours. During the Orient Express’ heyday, it took at less than 48 hours. And during the 15 years of the Direct Orient Express, it took longer.

Unlike many recent film goers and television viewers, historical accuracy or lack of it in a movie/television production has never bothered me. I still remain a major fan of both “MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS” (1974 version) and “FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE”. And although I have other major problems with the 2010 “MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS”, there are still aspects of it that I continue to enjoy. Historical inaccuracy has never impeded my enjoyment of a film, unless I found it particularly offensive. But since I can be occasionally anal and was bored, I could not resist a brief exploration of the Hollywood and British film industries’ portrayals of the Orient Express.