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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

“THE CLOCKS” (2009) Review

“THE CLOCKS” (2009) Review

While perusing the list of novels written by Agatha Christie between 1957 and 1973, I noticed that only five of them featured Belgian detective Hercule Poirot as the main detective. Five out of sixteen novels during this period. Considering how the author used to churn out Poirot novels and short stories like nobody’s business in the previous decades, I could not help but wonder if the author’s interest in the Belgian detective was on the wane. 

This certainly seemed to be the case for her 1963 novel, “The Clocks”. Although Poirot was the investigator who solved the mystery, he barely played a role in this investigation. Major supporting characters like Colin Lamb and Inspector Richard Hardcastle visited the crime scenes and questioned the suspects and other witnesses. They fed the information to Poirot, who exercised his “little grey cells” and solved the case. This is one reason why the 1963 novel was not a particular favorite of mine. Thankfully, the 2009 adaptation of “The Clocks” proved to be a different kettle of fish. Unlike his literary version for this tale, actor David Suchet’s Poirot was, without a doubt, the mystery’s main character.

Although the 2009 television movie, “THE CLOCKS”, provided some minor changes to Christie’s novel, it also featured two major changes. I have already commented on how Poirot had a bigger role (as he should) in this television adaptation. The setting for “THE CLOCKS” also underwent a major change. Instead of being set during the heyday of the Cold War, the 2010 television movie was set near the end of the 1930s, with Europe (and eventually the rest of the world) on the cusp of World War II. And the narrative’s B-plot reflected this. In “THE CLOCKS”, the character of Colin Lamb has been changed to Colin Race, conveying the idea that he is the son of of an old friend of Poirot’s. And instead of being an MI-5 (Special Branch) agent investigating a pro-Communist spy ring, Colin is a Royal Navy officer working for MI-6 and investigating a possible pro-Nazi spy ring in Dover. Also, the character of Richard “Dick” Hardcastle has become a slightly xenophobic police officer, who resented Poirot’s presence in the investigation. Despite these changes, the core of Christie’s narrative managed to survive for this adaptation.

“THE CLOCKS” began as a spy story in which MI-6 operative Colin Race finds himself investigating the theft of classified documents from a naval base at Dover Castle. Apparently, Colin’s girlfriend had spotted the thief/German spy, but was killed by a speeding car before she could apprehend the thief. Colin’s girlfriend left a clue, leading Colin to a neighborhood in Dover. Upon reaching one house on a street shaped like a crescent, a young woman named Sheila Webb races out of it, screaming that she had found a murdered man inside, along with a collection of clocks. Colin seeks Poirot’s help to solve the murder mystery, in case the murder proves to be connected with the spy ring he had been investigating and his girlfriend’s death.

As I had earlier stated, I am not a big fan of Christie’s 1963 novel. While some might find the idea of Poirot being reduced to a minor character who solves the mystery in an armchair rather amusing, I did not. I could not, especially if this was supposed to be a “Poirot” mystery. And as I had earlier pointed out, screenwriter Stewart Harcourt director Charlie Palmer ensured that Poirot would be the main character in this adaptation. I also enjoyed how the narrative allowed Poirot and Colin’s search for the spy ring and missing document overshadow their efforts to find the killer responsible for the mystery man’s death, along with the deaths of two other characters – Edna Brent, a typist and colleague of Sheila Webb’s; and Merlina Riva, a former stage actress who claimed to be the widow of the dead man discovered by Colin and Sheila. Throughout the story, those viewers unfamiliar with Christie’s novel might find themselves wondering if Sheila was responsible for the deaths, if the deaths had anything to do with the German spy ring, or if the three victims had been killed for another reason. Overall, I believe “THE CLOCKS” is a solid adaptation of Christie’s novel, but also an improvement.

However, there is one aspect of Harcourt and Palmer’s adaptation that I do not regard as an improvement. I refer to the character of Colin Race. One, this secondary lead character came off as less than intelligent than his literary counterpart. Colin was able to solve the mystery of the spy ring without Poirot’s help. And two, in the television movie, he struck me as a slightly shallow man who was able to transfer his affections from one woman to another within a few days. I found this rather tacky. I believe Harcourt’s screenplay made the mistake of having Colin involved with the doomed Fiona Hanbury, whose activities led him to another clue regarding the spy ring, at the beginning of the story. Worse, it did not take Colin very long to develop romantic feelings for Sheila Webb after meeting her. And he met Sheila in less than a week after Fiona’s death. Even when he was still mourning Fiona’s death, he was falling in love with Sheila. Really? This is just tackiness beyond belief. Colin’s romantic relationships in this movie made him look like a shallow idiot who seemed to have this need for romance in his life 24/7.

The television movie’s production values struck me as very impressive. I thought Jeff Tessler’s production designs did a great job in recreating Dover circa 1939. His work was ably supported by Miranda Cull’s art direction and Sheena Napier’s costume designs. I have mixed feelings about Peter Greenhalgh’s cinematography. On one hand, I found movie’s photography very colorful and beautiful. In fact, I thought it did justice to the production’s locations in London and Kent. But I did not care for the hazy veneer that I felt almost spoiled the photography. I found it an unnecessary device for indicating that this story was set in the past. And it reminded me of numerous period dramas in the 1970s that also used this camera device . . . unnecessarily.

I certainly had no problems with the movie’s cast. David Suchet, as always, gave a sharp and elegant portrayal of Hercule Poirot. In fact, his performance reinforced my relief that the screenwriter and director had given Poirot a bigger presence in this adaptation than in Christie’s novel. Despite my irritation with the Colin Race character, I cannot deny that Tom Burke gave an exceptionally skillful performance. He almost made me believe in the plausibility of Colin falling in love with one woman, while still grieving for another. I was very impressed by Jaime Winstone’s portrayal of the ambiguous Sheila Webb. I thought she did an excellent job in conveying both the character’s desperate need for everyone to believe in her innocence and her occasional lapses in morality. Phil Daniels was excellent as the slightly aggressive and xenophobic Inspector Richard “Dick” Hardcastle. Lesley Sharp gave a very subtle performance as Sheila’s no-nonsense boss Miss Martindale. And I was very impressed with Anna Massey’s performance as Miss Pebmarsh, the blind owner of the house that contained the dead man and the actress’s final role before her death. Like Winstone, Massey did an excellent job of portraying a very complicated and ambiguous character, who was haunted by the deaths of her sons during World War I. The television movie also featured excellent performances from Geoffrey Palmer (father of the director), Tessa Peake-Jones, Jason Watkins, Beatie Edney, Abigail Thaw, Guy Henry, Stephen Boxer, and Frances Barber.

In the end, I believe that “THE CLOCKS” was a solid adaptation of Agatha Christie’s 1963 novel, thanks to a first-rate script by Stewart Harcourt and first-rate direction by Charlie Palmer. My only true complaint was their handling of the Colin Race character. The television movie also featured excellent performances by a talented cast that included David Suchet, Anna Massey and Jaime Winstone.

Favorite Television Productions Set in the 1940s

Below is a list of my favorite television productions (so far) that are set in the 1940s: 

FAVORITE TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS SET IN THE 1940s

1. “Homefront” (1991-1993) – Lynn Marie Latham and Bernard Lechowick created this award-winning series about the residents of a small Ohio town in post-World War II.

2. “Mob City” (2013) – Jon Bernthal starred in this six-part limited series that was inspired by John Buntin’s book, “L.A. Noir: The Struggle for the Soul of America’s Most Seductive City”. Co-starring Alexa Davalos and Milo Ventimiglia, the series was created by Frank Darabont.

3. “Agent Carter” (2015-2016) – Hayley Atwell starred as Margaret “Peggy” Carter, an agent with the Strategic Scientific Reserve (SSR) in the post-World War II Manhattan. Created by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, the MCU series co-starred James D’Arcy and Enver Gjokaj.

4a. “Band of Brothers” (2001) – Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks produced this outstanding television miniseries about the history of a U.S. Army paratrooper company – “Easy Company” – during the war. Damian Lewis and Ron Livingston starred. (tie)

4b. “The Pacific” (2010) – Spielberg and Hanks struck gold again in this equally superb television miniseries about the experiences of three U.S. Marines – John Basilone, Robert Leckie and Eugene Sledge – in the war’s Pacific Theater. James Badge Dale, Joseph Mazzello and Jon Seda starred. (tie)

5. “Manhattan” (2014-2015) – Sam Shaw created this series about the creation of the first two atomic bombs at Los Alamitos, New Mexico. The series starred John Benjamin Hickey.

6. “The Winds of War” (1983) – Dan Curtis produced and directed this television adaptation of Herman Wouk’s 1971 novel. The seven-part miniseries starred Robert Mitchum, Ali McGraw and Jan-Michael Vincent.

7. “Pearl” (1978) – Stirling Silliphant wrote this three-part miniseries about a group of men and women who experienced the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Angie Dickinson, Robert Wagner, Lesley-Ann Warren and Dennis Weaver starred.

8. “The Jewel in the Crown” (1984) – The ITV aired this award winning television adaptation of Paul Scott’s “Raj Quartet”novels (1965–75) about the end of the British Raj in India. The fourteen-part miniseries starred Art Malik, Geraldine James, Charles Dance and Tim Pigott-Smith.

9. “Foyle’s War” (2002-2015) – Anthony Horowitz created this television crime drama about a British police detective during World War II. The series starred Michael Kitchen, Honeysuckle Weeks and Anthony Howell.

10. “RKO 281” (1999) – Liev Schreiber starred as Orson Welles in this 1999 television adaptation of 1996 documentary called “The Battle Over Citizen Kane”. The television movie also starred John Malkovich, Roy Schneider, James Cromwell and Melanie Griffith.

“TIMELESS”: Secrets and Mistrust

“TIMELESS”: SECRETS AND MISTRUST

Ever since Season Two of NBC’s “TIMELESS” completed its run, I have found myself re-watching the series from the beginning. It has been something of a slow burn, but I did not wish rush through it. Recently, I watched Season One episode called (1.06) “The Watergate Tape” and discovered something unpleasant about the series’ trio of protagonists. Well . . . at least two of them. 

Ever since the series’ premiere, (1.01) “Pilot”, the initial protagonist, the former NSA agent and rogue time traveler Garcia Flynn, has been trying to convince main protagonist Dr. Lucy Preston that they would become future colleagues and that he had possession of her future diary. Flynn also tried to warn Lucy about Rittenhouse, a mysterious political organization that has been at the forefront of the United States’ development since the American Revolution. Horrified by the idea of being a colleague with a man she regarded as nothing more than a murderer, she kept silent about the encounters.

In the same episode, the creator of the two time machines and head of Mason Industries, Connor Mason, had instructed his programming engineer/time machine pilot Rufus Carlin to provide an audio recording of his missions with Lucy and U.S. Army Delta Force operative Master Sergeant Wyatt Logan. Although Rufus agreed, he changed his mind in the next episode, (2.02) “The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln”. To convince Rufus to cooperate, Mason reminded the engineer that he had bankrolled the latter’s education. When Rufus had refused to continue recording their missions in (1.04) “Party at Castle Varlar”, a Rittenhouse operative threatened to harm Rufus’s family if he did not cooperate. Rittenhouse’s threat was issued again in “The Watergate Tape”when an older operative (or official) appeared outside of Rufus’ home with Mason inside a limousine. The Rittenhouse official made it clear that the organization was monitoring Rufus’ family. He also made it clear that if Rufus continues to refuse recording the time travel missions, the Carlin family might cease to exist.

Both Lucy’s previous encounters with Flynn and Rufus’ secret recordings finally came to light in this episode. After Flynn managed to capture the trio not long after their arrival in 1972 Washington D.C., he revealed his previous encounters with Lucy to both Rufus and Wyatt. Needless to say, both men were surprised and upset. While Flynn kept Wyatt as a hostage, he tasked both Lucy and Rufus to find the missing “doc” that was mentioned in the infamous 18 1/2 missing minutes from one of President Richard Nixon’s Watergate tapes. Both Lucy and Rufus discovered that the “doc” is actually a young African-American woman, whose family has been associated with Rittenhouse for generations. The “Doc” wanted to make her escape from the organization. Lucy overheard Rufus contact Rittenhouse and discovers that he had been providing the organization with audio recordings of their missions and reacts with anger. Meanwhile, Flynn informed Wyatt of his discovery that Rittenhouse had bankrolled Mason Industries and the organization’s murders of his wife and child. Because of this, Flynn became determined to bring down Rittenhouse, using the stolen time machine created by Mason. By the end of the episode, a very angry Wyatt learned about Rufus’ recordings on Rittenhouse’s behalf and instructed the latter to continue recording their missions.

I must not have understood the emotions that emitted from the protagonists in this episode, when I first saw it. As far as I knew, Lucy was angry at Rufus for recording their missions for Rittenhouse. Rufus was angry (at first) over Lucy’s previous discussions with Flynn. And Wyatt was angry at both of them for keeping secrets from him. I did not pay much attention to all of this, because in the following episode, (1.07) “Stranded”, the trio made their peace with each other. But after this latest re-watch of the episode, I found myself speculating on the two secrets kept by Rufus and Lucy and the reactions to them.

I understood why Rufus and Wyatt were upset over Flynn’s revelations that he had been in contact with Lucy. As far as both men were aware, Garcia Flynn was an enemy determined to bring down the United States government and the man who had murdered his family. The U.S. government have been trying to capture or kill him since the first episode. And considering that Lucy had failed to inform them of her interactions with Flynn since the first mission, I would not have been surprised if Wyatt and Rufus had began to wonder about her role on their team or whether she had been associated with Flynn all along.

However, my feelings regarding Rufus’ situation proved to be different. I understood Lucy and Wyatt’s initial anger over their discovery that the former had been recording their missions. But Rufus had made it clear that after their first mission he had refused to continue his recording until Rittenhouse had threatened to kill his family. He had even made an effort to point out that the organization had been observing him, his mother and his brother. Although Wyatt had instructed Rufus to continue recording the missions until they can learn more about Rittenhouse . . . he remained angry at and distrustful of the engineer. So did Lucy. And for some reason, I found myself feeling angry at both of them.

The more I thought about it, the more I realized that Wyatt and Lucy had allowed their anger to get the best of them . . . to the point that they seemed unwilling to comprehend the threat that Rittenhouse had personally posed to Rufus. It was bad enough that Connor had used his past sponsorship of Rufus’s career to blackmail the latter into cooperating.

Following Wyatt’s discovery of Flynn’s past history of Rittenhouse and the threats that Rufus had received, I found myself wondering why he still remained angry at the engineer. Surely he understood why Rufus had agreed to cooperate with Rittenhouse? The latter’s family had been threatened. And considering Flynn’s revelation that Rittenhouse had murdered his family, surely Wyatt understood that Rufus had a good reason to cooperate and keep those recordings a secret in the first place. On one level, he seemed to understand. After all, he did instruct Rufus to continue the recordings. But why remain angry at the other man? Why declare in an angry voice that he could never trust Rufus again? Was Wyatt really that self absorbed and hypocritical? Did he really believe that Rufus should have thought of the team over the Carlin family? Was he privately pissed that he might have to consider that Garcia Flynn’s conflict with Rittenhouse had some merit?

One might accuse Rufus of hypocrisy, considering his reaction to the revelation that Lucy had been in contact with Flynn since the first mission. However, I realized that Rufus had a better excuse for keeping his secret than Lucy had for keeping hers. His family had been threatened. Their safety, along with his, was at stake. Had Flynn threatened Lucy to keep their past conversations a secret? Had he threatened to kill her mother, Carol Preston, if she reveal their encounters to Rufus, Wyatt and Agent Christopher? The answer to both questions were “no”. Not only did Flynn not threatened Lucy to keep their private encounters a secret, he was the one who revealed those encounters to Rufus and Wyatt. And he had seemed a bit surprised that Lucy’s teammates never knew.

And yet . . . like Wyatt, Lucy had remained angry at Rufus by the end of the episode. I found myself wondering why she had remained angry. She seemed well aware that Rittenhouse was a threat. Not only had Rufus informed her that the organization had threatened him and his family, but that it also wanted “the Doc” killed. More importantly, the latter had explained to Lucy on just how dangerous Rittenhouse could be. Yet, she was still pissed at Rufus by the time they had returned to 2016. What the fuck? Was she pissed . . . jealous that Rufus had a better excuse to keep his activities a secret than she had for keeping her conversations with Flynn a secret? Frankly, I found Lucy’s hypocrisy even worse than Wyatt’s. After all, what was her excuse? She was appalled at the idea of her future self becoming a friend and/or ally of Garcia Flynn?

I am certain that many fans of the show would find my above ramblings inconsequential. As I had pointed out earlier, the tensions between Rufus, Lucy and Wyatt were eventually settled by the next episode. Why make a fuss over what happened between them in “The Watergate Episode”. Well . . . I had read several articles about the episode. Although some reviewers had discussed how tensions had arose between the three colleagues, no one had really bothered to discuss the hypocrisy that seemed seemed rampant in this episode. Or how this episode had pretty much exposed the uglier side of their natures – especially that of Lucy and Wyatt. At this point in the series, no one seemed willing to discuss this. And perhaps . . . the episode had annoyed me so much that I had to express myself in some form.

 

Top Five Favorite Episodes of “AGENT CARTER” (2015-2016)

Below is a list of my five favorite episodes from ABC’s “AGENT CARTER”. Created by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, the series stars Hayley Atwell as Agent Margaret “Peggy” Carter: 

TOP FIVE FAVORITE EPISODES OF “AGENT CARTER” (2015-2016)

1 - 2.02 A View in the Dark

1. (2.02) “A View in the Dark” – SSR Agent Peggy Carter’s investigation into the death of an Isodyne Energy employee in Los Angeles ends up with huge ramifications; when the wife of Isodyne’s owner, Hollywood actress Whitney Frost and another employee from the company, Dr. Jason Wilkes (who has volunteered to help Peggy), are exposed to the Zero Matter from the company’s particle accelerator.

1 - 1.06 A Sin to Err

2. (1.06) “A Sin to Err” – While Peggy and Howard Stark’s valet, Edwin Jarvis, investigate a mysterious woman whom Stark may have dated, Chief Roger Dooley and the rest of the Strategic Scientific Reserve (S.S.R.) staff begin to suspect that Peggy might be a traitor in their midst.

2 - 1.05 The Iron Ceiling

3. (1.05) “The Iron Ceiling” – After a message from the Leviathan intelligence agency is decoded; Peggy, Agent Jack Thompson and the Howling Commandos investigate a Soviet military complex to stop a possible sale of Stark’s missing weapons.

2 - 2.07 Monsters

4. (2.07) “Monsters” – While Peggy plans a rescue mission for former Leviathan agent Dottie Underwood, who had been captured in the previous episode, Whitney Frost covers up her murder of husband Calvin Chadwick and some members of the Council of Nine, a secret organization of U.S. industrialists. Whitney tortures Dottie into revealing why Peggy is interested in the Zero Matter and sets a trap that involves Jason Wilkes, along with Edwin and Anna Jarvis.

3 - 1.08 Valediction

5. (1.08) “Valediction” – In this season finale, Peggy and her fellow S.S.R. agents race to stop a pair of Leviathan agents from kidnapping Stark and dumping lethal gas on the population of New York City.

“Unnecessary Time Periods”

tumblr_inline_pf89pi9vWC1rh0l03_500

“UNNECESSARY TIME PERIODS”

I am a big fan of the DCEU or at least the franchise’s first phase. I am also a fan of the 2017 hit film, “WONDER WOMAN”. I was also pleased to discover that the film has managed to convince Hollywood studios – especially Warner Brothers and Disney – to create more comic book movies with a female protagonist. 

But my pleasure in both has somewhat been muted by what seemed to be a growing trend in Hollywood – to have these upcoming movies set in the past. Why? Because the successful “WONDER WOMAN” film was set in the past – during the last week or two of World War I? I had no problems with this, considering that “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE” had established Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman’s presence during that conflict with a single photograph. Hell, the television series from the 1970s had established Wonder Woman’s origin story during World War II during its Season One and brought her character into the present (late 1970s to early 1980s) in the seasons that followed.

However, I learned that the second Wonder Woman movie starring Gal Gadot will be set in 1984. To drive home that point, it is called “WONDER WOMAN 1984”. Personally, I do not understand this decision. Was this Warner Brothers and Patty Jenkins’ attempt to cash in on the first movie’s success? Was it to undermine the back story for Wonder Woman that was established by Zack Snyder in both “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN” and “JUSTICE LEAGUE” in order to make her seem like a more ideal character? Who knows. But this movie will definitely establish a plot hole in the franchise’s overall narrative.

Warner Brothers also plans to create and release “SUPERGIRL”, who happened to be Kara Zor-El, the first cousin of Clark Kent aka Superman. And they plan to set this movie in the 1970s. Why? Apparently, Supergirl is the older cousin and to the movie’s screenwriters, it made sense that she would reach Earth before him. But . . . “MAN OF STEEL” and “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN”had already established that Superman was the first powerful alien to become known to Humans. In fact, there have been others before the arrival of General Zod and his followers who were aware of Clark’s powers. You know . . . like Jonathan and Martha Kent, some of Smallville’s citizens and Lois Lane. By setting “SUPERGIRL” in the 1970s, Warner Brothers would again . . . undermining a narrative point established in previous films. Why not follow the example of the television shows like “SUPERGIRL” and “SMALLVILLE” on the CW by having Kara aka Supergirl’s spacecraft knocked off course and forced into the Phantom Zone for a decade or two? So, by the time Kara finally reached Earth, her cousin Kal-El would have grown up and become Superman. Why not use this scenario?

“WONDER WOMAN”, Marvel’s Kevin Feige had finally decided that the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) will feature a comic book movie with a woman in the starring role . . . namely “CAPTAIN MARVEL”. Mind you, I still find it cowardly that Feige had decided to wait until the success of another studio to produce a movie featuring a comic book heroine in the lead. Especially since the character Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow has been part of the franchise since the 2010 movie, “IRON MAN 2”. However . . . I discovered that “CAPTAIN MARVEL” will be set in the 1990s. And I ask myself . . . why?

The official word is that the movie’s time period is being used to set up Nick Fury’s trajectory toward forming The Avengers years later. After all, both Samuel L. Jackson and Clark Gregg as future S.H.I.E.L.D. Directors Nick Fury and Phil Coulson will be in the film. But this is so unnecessary. I realize that Tony Stark aka Iron Man was not the first enhanced being or metahuman (so to speak) to attract the attention of S.H.I.E.L.D. Fury must have known about Steve Rogers aka Captain America’s war service in “CAPTAIN AMERICA: FIRST AVENGER”. He must have known about Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne’s S.H.I.E.L.D. activities in the 1980s as Ant-Man and the Wasp. And her certainly knew about Dr. Bruce Banner’s experiments in gamma radiation and eventual transformation into the Hulk before the events of “THE INCREDIBLE HULK”. After all, 2008’s “THE INCREDIBLE HULK”was not an actual origin movie. So, I find myself wondering why Feige found it necessary to set up Fury’s trajectory with enhanced beings with Carol Danvers aka Captain Marvel . . . in the 1990s. Unless “CAPTAIN MARVEL” is simply another attempt by a studio or producer – in this case, Kevin Feige and the MCU – to cash in on the success of “WONDER WOMAN”. Why not just admit it? Especially since it seems so obvious.

And by the way, why are all of these films led by a comic book heroine? Just because “WONDER WOMAN” was set in the past, there is no reason why every single comic book movie with a woman in the lead have to be set in the past? What is the point in all of this? Yes, “CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER” was set in the past. However, the following two movies featuring Captain America were set in the present. So, why did Marvel feel it was necessary to set “CAPTAIN MARVEL” in the past? Why is it that none of the other MCU movies led by men set in the past? Why did Warner Brothers believe it was necessary to set its second Wonder Woman and Supergirl films in the past? Has this been the case for any of their movies with a male lead or ensemble-oriented movies like “SUICIDE SQUAD”?

I found myself wondering if there is another reason why these three upcoming comic book heroine movies are being set in the past. But I could not find any. The time periods for these films are so unnecessary and an obvious attempts to copy the success of “WONDER WOMAN”. The thing is . . . Wonder Woman’s past during World War I and the photograph discovered by both Bruce Wayne aka Batman and Lex Luthor allowed them to recognize her as a possible metahuman or enhanced being. For me, there is no good reason for “WONDER WOMAN 1984”“SUPERGIRL” or “CAPTAIN MARVEL” to be set in the past.