“CAT AMONG THE PIGEONS” (2008) Review

“CAT AMONG THE PIGEONS” (2008) Review

I have a confession to make. I am not particularly fond of Agatha Christie’s later novels featuring Belgian-born private detective, Hercule Poirot. Most of those novel were published between the end of the 1950s and 1976, the year of Christie’s death. But there is one Poirot novel that I have enjoyed over the years. It is the 1959 novel, “The Cat Among the Pigeons”.

Nearly fifty years later, the producers of the ITV series, “AGATHA CHRISTIE’S POIROT” aired an adaptation of the novel. Written by Mark Gatiss, the story began in a fictional Middle Eastern country called Ramat during a revolution. The country’s leader, Prince Ali Yusaf, and his close friend, a British pilot named Bob Rawlinson; engaged in a violent shoot-out with revolutionaries that had managed to storm the palace. Rawlinson confirmed to the prince that he had made arrangements for the latter’s valuable rubies to leave the country minutes before the revolutionaries killed them in a hail of bullets.

A few months later, Belgian detective Hercule Poirot found himself at Meadowbank, a prestigious girls’ school in England, serving as a guest speaker for its award ceremony. Poirot happened to be a close friend of the school’s founder and headmistress, Miss Honoria Bulstrode. Following the ceremony, the latter asked the Belgian detective to remain at the school for a few days and help her select her successor following her retirement. However, Poirot found himself investigating a lot more when Miss Grace Springer, the school’s sports teacher, is found skewered to death by a javelin in the Sports Pavilion. Several days later, one of the students – Princess Shaista, Ali Yusaf’s cousin – disappeared from school . . . believed to have been kidnapped. Fearful that events might lead to the school’s closing, Miss Bulstrode asked Poirot to investigate and solve both the murder and the kidnapping.

There had been some changes in this adaptation of Christie’s 1959 novel. Several supporting characters had been omitted, which is not surprising to me. Poirot was featured in the television movie from the beginning to the end . . . unlike the novel in which he made his first appearance two-thirds into the story. In fact, he and Miss Bulstrode were not close friends in the novel. I believe one of the biggest improvements of this television adaptation was to feature Poirot’s character in the story from the beginning to the end. The manner of deaths for some of the characters had been changed. The biggest change proved to be the setting. The latter was changed from the late 1950s to the mid-to-late 1930s in order to fit the premise for “AGATHA CHRISTIE’S POIROT”. Fortunately, none of these changes had damaged the television movie’s narrative. But I did find the reasoning behind Poirot’s stay at Meadowbank a little thin.

Christie’s novel has always been a favorite of mine, considering how it permeated with political intrigue. That same intrigue seemed present in “CAT AMONG THE PIGEONS”. Yet . . . how I can put it? The political atmosphere seemed slightly muted from the novel. I believe the problem originated with Grace Springer’s death. In the novel, her death seemed to emphasize the mystery surrounding the Sports Pavilion. Whereas this movie had put a great deal of focus on Springer’s character. Perhaps a bit too much. I have always found the screenwriter’s decision to transform Miss Springer into a borderline sadist with a penchant for blackmail unnecessary. I also wish that Gatiss had included Christie’s original ending that featured Ali Yusaf’s secret British wife and son. I have always found that particular scene poignant.

Otherwise, I did not have a problem with the changes made in “CAT AMONG THE PIGEONS”. Although it is not favorite Christie adaptation of mine, I cannot deny that I have always enjoyed it. One, I enjoyed the political intrigue behind the narrative, even if it seemed slightly muted. Two, I thought the movie did an excellent job in its characterizations – especially with the school’s teachers. I also enjoyed the developing relationship between Poirot and Inspector Kelsey, thanks to Gatiss’ screenplay and the performances of David Suchet and Anton Lesser. Three, if I must be honest, I thought Gatiss did a better job in portraying Ali Yusaf and Bob Rawlinson’s deaths than Christie. In the latter’s novel, the pair was killed in an arranged plane crash, off screen.

The production values of the “AGATHA CHRISTIE’S POIROT” movies have been something of a mixed bag post-2000. Although most of the television movies did an excellent of reflecting Great Britain during the mid-to-late 1930s, there have been a few that I found questionable. Thankfully, I cannot say the same about the production values for “CAT AMONG THE PIGEONS”. I believe the movie benefited greatly from Jeff Tessler’s production designs, Michael Harrowes’ editing, Miranda Cull and Paul Spriggs’ art direction and Cinders Forshaw’s photography. However, I did wish that Forshaw had not been so inclined to indulged in that hazy photography that had seemed to dominate period dramas from the 1970s and 1980s.

I also enjoyed Sheena Napier’s costume designs. I thought she did a solid job in creating costumes that reflected the movie’s setting. But I had one complaint about Napier’s costumes – namely those worn by actress Natasha Little. Perhaps my eyes were deceiving me, but the hemlines for Little’s costumes seemed a bit short for the 1930s. The idea of her wearing dresses that were indicative of the late 1920s seemed rather odd. Little portrayed Ann Shapland, a secretary who had worked for a series of prestigious employers – including Miss Bulstrode. I doubt that the Miss Shapland character lacked the finances to purchase clothes that were in fashion.

The performances featured in “CAT AMONG THE PIGEONS” seemed top-notch as usual. I have already commented on David Suchet and Anton Lesser’s performances as Hercule Poirot and Inspector Kelsey, complimenting both actors for conveying the growing professional relationship between the two characters. Harriet Walter did an excellent job in her portrayal of the more than competent Honoria Bulstrode, the school’s headmistress.

Adam Croasdell gave a solid performance as the likeable, yet smarmy school gardener, Adam Goodman. Natasha Little was excellent as Miss Bulstrode’s slightly sophisticated secretary Ann Shephard, who was also hiding a poignant secret. Amara Karan proved to be rather entertaining as Princess Shaista, the royal student who regarded herself as more mature and superior than the other student. I can say the same about Amanda Abbington’s portrayal of Miss Blake, the art teacher who did not bother to hide her dislike of the boorish Miss Springer. Although I was a little critical of Gatiss’ decision to make the latter character unlikable in a rather ham-fisted manner, I cannot deny that Elizabeth Barrington gave an interesting performance.

The television movie featured solid performances from Carol MacReady, Pippa Heywood, Katie Leung, Georgia Cornick, Jo Woodcock and Lois Edmett. But I feel that Claire Skinner and Susan Wooldridge gave the two best performances as literary teacher Eileen Rich and Miss Chadwick, teacher and co-founder of the school. Both actresses did a superb job in evoking the poignant aspects of their characters.

“CAT AMONG THE PIGEONS” is a curious adaptation. Some of the changes to Agatha Christie’s 1959 novel made by Mark Gatiss struck me as a bit detrimental to the production – especially the exaggeration of Miss Springer’s character. Yet, some of the changes – including Poirot’s increased appearances and the manner of two minor characters’ death – seemed to improve the story. Overall, I enjoyed “CAT AMONG THE PIGEONS” very much thanks to Mark Gatiss’ screenplay, James Kent’s direction and especially the performances of the cast led by David Suchet. I still find it very satisfying.

Favorite Television Productions Set in the 1810s

Below is a list of my favorite television productions set during the 1810s:

FAVORITE TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS SET IN THE 1810s

1. “Pride and Prejudice” (1995) – Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth starred in this award winning adaptation of Jane Austen’s 1813 novel. The six-part miniseries was adapted by Andrew Davies and directed by Simon Langton.

2. “Emma” (2009) – Romola Garai, Jonny Lee Miller and Michael Gambon starred in this excellent adaptation of Jane Austen’s 1815 novel. The four-part miniseries was adapted by Sandy Welch and directed by Jim O’Hanlon.

3. “Vanity Fair” (1987) – Eve Matheson starred in this superb adaptation of William Makepeace Thackery’s 1848 novel. The sixteen-part miniseries was directed by Diarmuid Lawrence and Michael Owen Morris; and adapted by Alexander Baron.

4. “Pride and Prejudice” (1980) – Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul starred in this first-rate adaptation of Jane Austen’s 1813 novel. The five-part miniseries was adapted by Fay Weldon and directed by Cyril Coke.

5. “War and Peace” (2016) – Paul Dano, Lily James and James Norton starred in this excellent adaptation of Leo Tolstoy’s 1869 novel. The six-part miniseries was adapted by Andrew Davies and directed by Tom Harper.

6. “Vanity Fair” (1998) – Natasha Little starred in this award winning adaptation of William Makepeace Thackery’s 1848 novel. The six-part miniseries was directed by Marc Munden and adapted by Andrew Davies.

7. “Emma” (1972) – Doran Godwin and John Carson starred in this first-rate adaptation of Jane Austen’s 1815 novel. The six-part miniseries was adapted by Denis Constanduros and directed by John Glenister.

8. “Davy Crockett and the River Pirates” (1956) – This sequel to the 1955 television movie, “Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier”, conveyed the experiences of Davy Crockett and George Russel with keelboat riverman Mike Fink and river pirates along the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. Picturesque and a lot of fun. Directed by Norman Foster, the TV movie starred Fess Parker, Buddy Ebsen and Jeff York.

9. “War and Peace” (1972) – Anthony Hopkins, Morag Hood and Alan Dobie starred in this superb adaptation of Leo Tolstoy’s 1869 novel. The twenty-part miniseries was adapted by Jack Pulman and directed by John Davies.

10. “Poldark” (1996) – John Bowe and Mel Martin starred in this television adaptation of Winston Graham’s 1981 novel from his Poldark series, “The Stranger From the Sea”. The television movie was directed by Richard Laxton and adapted by Robin Mukherjee.

“BREATHLESS” (2013) Episode Ranking

Below is a ranking of the episodes from the 2013 ITV limited series, “BREATHLESS”. Created by Paul Unwin and Peter Grimsdale, the series starred Jack Davenport and Catherine Steadman:

“BREATHLESS” (2013) EPISODE RANKING

1. (1.03) “Episode Three” – In 1961 London, chief gynecologist Dr. Otto Powell, along with anesthetist Charlie Enderbury and former nurse Jean Truscott perform an illegal abortion on young woman in Soho but complications arise, requiring an admission to a hospital. Jean’s husband, junior doctor Richard Truscott, has a reunion with former lover Margaret Dalton and resumes their affair.

2. (1.06) “Episode Six” – Otto and his wife, Elizabeth, have a confrontation with police Inspector Ronald Mulligan, who has been blackmailing her into having a sexual affair. Years earlier in Cyprus, Otto had bribed Mulligan into keeping silent about an accidental death involving Elizabeth’s fiancé, an American officer.

3. (1.02) “Episode Two” – Charlie loses out on his promotion to chief anesthetist to the newly arrived Dr. Omprakash Mehta. Following their return from their honeymoon, an angry Richard discovers that Jean, with Otto’s collusion, had kept her miscarriage a secret before their wedding. Jean holds a dinner party that ends in disaster.

4. (1.05) “Episode Five” – Margaret is admitted into the hospital for cervical cancer and receives a visit from Jean. Angela Wilson, Jean’s sister and a nurse, spots Otto and Elizabeth on a theater trip and realizes that an affair with him would be pointless, despite her attraction to him. And Charlie’s wife, Lily Enderbury, spots Mulligan at the Powell home.

5. (1.01) “Episode One” – Right before Jean and Richard’s wedding, the former has a miscarriage and asks Otto to help keep the incident a secret. Angela is hired as a nurse for the hospital’s gynecology unit. She later helps Inspector Mulligan’s unmarried daughter avoid being forced into a loveless marriage.

6. (1.04) “Episode Four” – Otto and Angela travel to Dorset with a medical student named Sam Roth in order to treat an unmarried girl who had been raped by her father and is giving up her triplets for adoption. Elizabeth sends her son Thomas away during Otto’s trip in order to accommodate Mulligan, but is surprised by a visit from Charlie.

“FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD” (1998) Review

“FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD” (1998) Review

For years, I had made an effort to avoid any novel written by Thomas Hardy and any movie or television production based upon his works. This has nothing to do with how I felt about the quality of his work. My attitude sprang from my reading of his 1886 novel, “The Mayor of Casterbridge”, when I was in my late teens. I found the latter rather depressing and suspected that most of his other works possessed the same downbeat tone. As I grew older, I discovered a tolerance for stories with a downbeat or bittersweet ending. This led me to try Hardy again and so, I focused my attention on the 1998 miniseries, “FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD”.

Based upon Hardy’s 1874 novel, “FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD” told the story about a young woman named Bathsheba Everdene, who had recently inherited her late uncle’s prosperous estate. Possessing a vain, yet independent and naïve personality, Bathsheba finds herself torn between three men who wish to marry her:

*Gabriel Oak – a failed sheep farmer who is hired by Bathsheba as a shepherd for her farm

*William Boldwood – a prosperous farmer and Bathsheba’s neighbor, who develops a romantic obsession toward her

*Sergeant Francis “Frank” Troy – a dashing Army sergeant, who turns to Bathsheba not long after his planned wedding to a local girl named Fanny Robin fails to take place.

The story begins with Bathsheba living on a farm with her aunt, Mrs. Hurst. She meets Gabriel Oak, a former shepherd who has leased and stocked a sheep farm. Although the pair develops a close friendship, Gabriel falls in love with Bathsheba and eventually proposes marriage. Valuing her independence too much, Bathsheba refuses and their relationship cools down. Gabriel’s fortunes take a worse for turn, when his inexperienced sheep dog drives his flock of sheep over a cliff, bankrupting him. Bathsheba, on the other hand, inherits her uncle’s prosperous estate in Westbury. Their paths crosses again, and she ends up hiring Gabriel as her new shepherd.

However, Bathsheba has also become acquainted with her new neighbor, the wealthy farmer, John Boldwood, who becomes romantically obsessed with her after she sends him a Valentine’s Day card as a joke. He sets about wooing her in a persistent manner that she finds difficult to ignore. But just as Bathsheba is about to consider Mr. Boldwood as a potential husband, Sergeant Frank Troy enters her life and she becomes infatuated with him. Unbeknownst to anyone, Frank was set to marry one of Bathsheba’s former servants, a young woman named Fanny Robin. Unfortunately, the latter showed up at the wrong church for the wedding. Humiliated and angry, Frank called off the wedding. While Bathsheba finds herself in the middle of a rather unpleasant love triangle between Boldwood and Frank, Gabriel can only watch helplessly as this situation develops into tragedy.

I might as well be honest. “FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD” did not strike me as completely tragic. It did not prove to be tragic at the same level as stories like “The Mayor of Casterbridge” or “Tess of the d’Urbervilles”. In fact, the story did not even have a tragic ending (for which I am grateful). But there was something . . . I cannot put my finger on it . . . there was an undertone to the story that I found both fascinating and disturbing. And it all revolved around the character of Bathsheba Everdene. Personally, I feel that she was one of Hardy’s best creations. Bathsheba proved to be a curious mixture of virtues and flaws that I fear is becoming increasingly rare among fictional female characters.

One one hand, Bathsheba was an intelligent woman who quickly learned to manage an estate and lead a group of workers who harbored doubts about her, due to her gender. She also had the good sense to realize she lacked the experience or talent to deal with some aspect of estate managing and turn to someone who could help her – usually Gabriel Oak. On the other hand, Bathsheba also proved to be a vain young woman, who seemed a bit too concerned about how others thought about her. This vanity led her to hide her previous friendship with Gabriel . . . to the point that she insisted they maintain an employer-employee distance from each other. Bathsheba also possessed a slightly cruel streak that led her to thoughtlessly play an unkind joke on John Boldwood by sending him a Valentine Day’s card with the words “Marry me” scribbled on it. Ironically, Bathsheba also proved she could be just as obsessive as Boldwood, when she fell for Frank Troy and realizes after their wedding that he had continued to love his former fiancée, Fanny Robin. It was this combination of positive and negative traits that made Bathsheba such an interesting and ambiguous character. And Bathsheba’s ambiguous nature seemed to have a strong impact on Hardy’s tale.

Through Bathsheba’s relationship with Gabriel Oak, audiences received glimpses of the day-to-day realities of business and life on a 19th century farm. Audiences also got a chance to view Bathsheba through Gabriel’s eyes – despite his love for her, he seemed to harbor a realistic view of her. Through her relationships with neighbor John Boldwood and husband Frank Troy, audiences got the chance to see Bathsheba deal with obsession from both sides of the fence – whether she was the object of Boldwood’s obsession or Frank was the object of hers. Now that I think about it, I find it odd that a major character would experience obsession from different perspectives in that manner. How strange . . . and yet, satisfying in a way.

Although the plot for “FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD” focused strongly on the romantic dynamics between Bathsheba, the three men in her life and the Fanny Robin character; I was pleased to discover that Philomena McDonagh’s screenplay also gave audiences many glimpses into the lives of the farmhands that worked for Bathsheba. The miniseries delved into her relationship with her workers and their own perspectives and hangups over whether she could handle being the owner of prosperous farm. As with her relationship with Gabriel, Bathsheba’s relationship with her workers allowed the audiences to appreciate the realities of life on a 19th century farm.

The production values for “FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD” seemed pretty top-notch. Well . . . most of them. I had no problems with Adrian Smith’s production designs. I thought he did an excellent job in re-creating mid 19th century Wessex. Rosie Hardwick and Paul Kirby’s art direction contributed to the movie’s overall look, along with Nic Ede’s costume designs. I find it interesting that this version is set between the late 1850s and 1860, especially since the other two adaptation are set in the 1870s . . . the same decade as the novel’s publication. Although I admire John Daly’s use of the locations in Derbyshire, Cheshire and Wiltshire as substitutes for Wessex, I did not care for the cinematography very much. I found it slightly too dark and the color did not hold up well in the following seventeen to eighteen years.

The cast, on the other hand, struck me as first-rate. It is a pity that very few ever comment on Paloma Baeza’s portrayal of Bathsheba Everdeen. Frankly, I thought she did an excellent job in conveying both the character’s ambiguities, charm and intelligence. More importantly, she did a first-rate job in carrying such a large production on her shoulders, at such a young age. Nathaniel Parker’s portrayal of Gabriel Oak proved to be the production’s emotional backbone. But the actor also did an excellent job in conveying his character’s quiet passion, along with his jealousy and growing despair over Bathsheba’s relationships with both John Boldwood and Frank Troy.

John Terry was at least a decade older than the John Boldwood character at the time this miniseries was filmed. However, I do not believe that this decade old age difference hampered his character one whit. He gave an outstanding performance as the love-sick, middle-aged farmer who developed a growing obsession over the young and pretty Bathsheba. At first, I had some difficulty is viewing Jonathan Firth as the dashing, yet egotistical Frank Troy. I fear this had to do with my inability to view the actor as the roguish type. And I was not that impressed by the sword demonstration scene between his his character and Baeza’s Bathsheba. But the more I watched Firth on the television screen, the more I found myself impressed by his performance . . . especially by the time his character had married Bathsheba and began to reveal his less than pleasant traits to his new wife. Natasha Little gave a very charming, yet sympathetic performance as the hard-luck Fanny Robin, whose mistake in showing up at the wrong church for her wedding to Frank, proved to be so disastrous. Fortunately for Little, the screenplay allowed her to portray Fanny as an individual with her own set of emotions, instead of the mere plot device that Hardy had portrayed in the novel. The production also benefited from solid performances by Tracy Keating, Gabrielle Lloyd, Linda Bassett, Phillip Joseph, Rhys Morgan, Reginald Callcott and Sean Gilder.

“FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD” may have suffered from questionable photography, but I certainly had no problems with other aspects of the productions. Its 216 minutes running time allowed screenwriter Philomena McDonagh and director Nicholas Renton to create a superb and detailed adaptation of Thomas Hardy’s novel. Also, top-notch production values (aside from the photography) and excellent performances from a cast led by Paloma Baeza and Nathaniel Parker added a great deal to already well done miniseries.

R.I.P. Nigel Terry (1945-2015)

“VANITY FAIR” (2004) Review

“VANITY FAIR” (2004) Review

William Makepeace Thackery’s 1848 novel about the life and travails of an ambitious young woman in early 19th century has generated many film and television adaptations. One of them turned out to be the 2004 movie that was directed by Mira Nair. 

“VANITY FAIR” covers the early adulthood of one Becky Sharp, the pretty and ambitious daughter of an English not-so-successful painter and a French dancer during the early years from 1802 to 1830. The movie covers Becky’s life during her impoverished childhood with her painter father, during her last day as a student at Miss Pinkerton’s Academy for Young Ladies, where she meets her only friend Amelia Sedley – the only daughter of a slightly wealthy gentleman and her years as a governess for the daughters of a crude, yet genial baronet named Sir Pitt Crawley. While working for the Crawleys, Becky meets and falls in love with Sir Pitt’s younger son, Captain Rawdon Crawley. When Sir Pitt proposes marriage to Becky, she shocks the family with news of her secret marriage to Rawdon. The couple is ostracized and ends up living in London on Rawdon’s military pay and gambling winnings. They also become reacquainted with Amelia Sedley, who has her own problems. When her father loses his fortune, the father of her beau, George Osborne, tries to arrange a marriage between him and a Jamaican heiress. Leery of the idea of marrying a woman of mixed blood, he marries Amelia behind Mr. Obsorne’s back, and the latter disinherits him. Not long after George and Amelia’s marriage, word reaches Britain of Napoleon’s escape from Elba and control of France. Becky and Amelia follow Rawdon, George, and Dobbin, who are suddenly deployed to Brussels as part of the Duke of Wellington’s army. And life for Becky and those close to her prove to be even more difficult.

The first thing I noticed about “VANITY FAIR” was that it was one of the most beautiful looking movies I have ever seen in recent years. Beautiful and colorful. A part of me wonders if director Mira Nair was responsible for the movie’s overall look. Some people might complain and describe the movie’s look as garish. I would be the first to disagree. Despite its color – dominated by a rich and deep red that has always appealed to me – “VANITY FAIR” has also struck me as rather elegant looking film, thanks to cinematographer Declan Quinn. But he was not the only one responsible for the film’s visual look. Maria Djurkovic’s production designs and the work from the art direction team – Nick Palmer, Sam Stokes and Lucinda Thomson. All did an excellent job of not only creating what I believe to be one of the most colorful and elegant films I have ever seen, but also in re-creating early 19th century Britain, Belgium, Germany and India. But I do have a special place in my heart for Beatrix Aruna Pasztor’s costume designs. I found them absolutely ravishing. Colorful . . . gorgeous. I am aware that many did not find them historically accurate. Pasztor put a bit more Hollywood into her designs than history. But I simply do not care. I love them. And to express this love, the following is a brief sample of her costumes worn by actress Reese Witherspoon:

  

I understand that Witherspoon was pregnant at the time and Pasztor had to accommodate the actress’ pregnancy for her costumes. Judging from what I saw on the screen, I am beginning to believe that Witherspoon’s pregnancy served her role in the story just fine.

Now that I have raved over the movie’s visual look and style, I might as well talk about the movie’s adaptation. When I first heard about “VANITY FAIR”, the word-of-mouth on the Web seemed to be pretty negative. Thackery’s novel is a long one – written in twenty parts. Naturally, a movie with a running time of 141 minutes was not about to cover everything in the story. And I have never been one of those purists who believe that a movie or television adaptation had to be completely faithful to its source. Quite frankly, it is impossible for any movie or television miniseries to achieve. And so, it was not that surprising that the screenplay written by Julian Fellowes, Matthew Faulk and Mark Skeet would not prove to be an accurate adaptation. I expected that. However, there were some changes I could have done without.

Becky Sharp has always been one of the most intriguing female characters in literary history. Among the traits that have made her fascinating were her ambitions, amorality, talent for manipulation and sharp tongue. As much as I enjoyed Reese Witherspoon’s performance in the movie – and I really did – I thought it was a mistake for Fellowes, Faulk and Skeet to make Becky a more “likeable” personality in the movie’s first half. One, it took a little bite not only out of the character, but from the story’s satirical style, as well. And two, I found this change unnecessary, considering that literary fans have always liked the darker Becky anyway. Thankfully, this vanilla-style Becky Sharp disappeared in the movie’s second half, as the three screenwriters returned to Thackery’s sharper and darker portrayal of the character. I was also a little disappointed with the movie’s sequence featuring Becky’s stay at the Sedley home and her seduction of Amelia’s older brother, Jos. I realize that as a movie adaptation, “VANITY FAIR” was not bound to be completely accurate as a story. But I was rather disappointed with the sequence featuring Becky’s visit to the Sedley home at Russell Square in London. Perhaps it was just me, but I found that particular sequence somewhat rushed. I was also disappointed by Nair and producer Jannette Day’s decision to delete the scene featuring Becky’s final meeting with her estranged son, Rawdy Crawley. This is not out of some desire to see Robert Pattinson on the screen. Considering that the movie’s second half did not hesitate to reveal Becky’s lack of warmth toward her son, I felt that this last scene could have remained before she departed Europe for India with Jos.

Despite my complaints and the negative view of the movie by moviegoers that demanded complete accuracy, I still enjoyed“VANITY FAIR” very much. Although I was a little disappointed in the movie’s lighter portrayal of the Becky Sharp, I did enjoy some of the other changes. I had no problem with the addition of a scene from Becky’s childhood in which she first meets Lord Steyne. I felt that this scene served as a strong and plausible omen of her future relationship with the aristocrat. Unlike others, I had no problems with Becky’s fate in the end of the movie. I have always liked the character, regardless of her amoral personality. And for once, it was nice to see her have some kind of happy ending – even with the likes of the lovesick Jos Sedley. Otherwise, I felt that“VANITY FAIR” covered a good deal of Thackery’s novel with a sense of humor and flair.

I have always found it odd that most people seemed taken aback by an American in a British role more so than a Briton in an American role. After all, it really depends upon the individual actor or actress on whether he or she can handle a different accent. In the case of Reese Witherspoon, she used a passable British accent, even if it was not completely authentic. More importantly, not only did she give an excellent performance, despite the writers’ changes in Becky’s character, she was also excellent in the movie’s second half, which revealed Becky’s darker nature.

Witherspoon was ably assisted with a first-rate cast. The movie featured fine performances from the likes of James Purefoy, Deborah Findley, Tony Maudsley, Geraldine McEwan, Eileen Atkins, Douglas Hodge, Natasha Little (who portrayed Becky Sharp in the 1998 television adaptation of the novel), and especially Romola Garai and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers as Amelia Sedley and George Osborne. But I was especially impressed by a handful of performances that belonged to Bob Hoskins, Rhys Ifans and Gabriel Byrne. Bob Hoskins was a delight as the slightly crude and lovesick Sir Pitt Crawley. Rhys Ifans gave one of his most subtle performances as the upright and slightly self-righteous William Dobbins, who harbored a unrequited love for Amelia. Jim Broadbent gave an intense performance as George’s ambitious and grasping father. And Gabriel Byrne was both subtle and cruel as the lustful and self-indulgent Marquis of Steyne.

In the end, I have to say that I cannot share the negative opinions of “VANITY FAIR”. I realize that it is not a “pure” adaptation of William Makepeace Thackery’s novel or that it is perfect. But honestly, I do not care. Despite its flaws, “VANITY FAIR” proved to be a very entertaining movie for me. And I would have no problem watching it as much as possible in the future.