Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Below is Part Four to my article about Hollywood's depiction about the westward migration via wagon trains in 19th century United States. It focuses upon the 1979 CBS miniseries, "THE CHISHOLMS":
"WESTWARD HO!": Part Four - "THE CHISHOLMS" (1979)
The 1979 television miniseries, "THE CHISHOLMS" began as an adaptation of Evan Hunter's 1976 novel of the same title. It told the story of a Western Virginia family's trek to California in the mid-1840s.
It began in 1843 with the wedding of Hadley and Minerva Hadley's oldest child, Will. Life for the Chisholm family at their Appalachian farm seemed charmed, until the members suffer a series of misfortunes by the early spring of 1844. Will's new wife died after giving birth to a stillborn child. Hadley managed to alienate the local plantation owner, known as "the Squire", after he terrorized the local preacher for using the wrong Bible passage at his daughter-in-law's funeral. And the family lost a valuable piece of land to an antagonistic neighbor, thanks to Hadley's late older brother. Years earlier, the latter had abandoned the neighbor's sister before a wedding could take place, and willed the land to her as compensation. Stuck with land unfit for farming, Hadley decides to move his family to California.
The Chisholms suffer a few more misfortunes during their trek to California. They discover from a Louisville merchant that they had began their westward trek at least a month too late. They made a second mistake by hiring an Illinois man named Lester Hackett to guide them west. The latter fell in love with Hadley and Minerva's older daughter, Bonnie Sue and ended up getting her pregnant before abandoning the family near St. Louis. Will and middle son Gideon left the family to track Lester to Iowa and ended up serving on a prison work gang for a month, for "trespassing" on the farm of Lester's mother. By the time the family reached the western plains, it suffered a major tragedy, which convinced them to end their journey at Fort Laramie, in present-day Wyoming.
II. History vs. Hollywood
Like "CENTENNIAL", "THE CHISHOLMS" managed to be that rare period drama that managed to be historically accurate . . . or at least 95% accurate. In fact, I was only able to find one topic that struck me as historically inaccurate. And it proved to be minor.
When the Chisholms began their journey from western Virginia to California in 1844, they had left their old cabin in mid-spring. After all, they reached Louisville, Kentucky by May 16 or 17. Most wagon parties usually left Independence, Missouri, the jump-off spot for the western trails by that period. Even the infamous Donner Party left western Missouri sometime between May 16 and May 20 (in 1846). At least two people remarked on their late departure - a Louisville merchant and a saloon keeper in Independence. Aside from Minerva and youngest daughter Annabel, the rest of the Chisholms decided to continue the trek west in the hope of encountering more wagons.
Aside from "CENTENNIAL", "THE CHISHOLMS" is the only production I know that covered a wagon journey east of Missouri. Most movies or television productions usually have wagon parties begin their journey in St. Louis or Independence. The Chisholms' journey included a river journey down the Ohio River aboard a craft similar to the flatboat; the crossing of the Big Blue River; and passing famous landmarks such as Scott's Bluff, Courthouse Rock and Chimney Rock.
Just prior to the Chisholms' westward journey, they acquired a larger wagon through barely fair means (which is another story). Surprisingly, the new wagon proved to be a decent-sized farm wagon, suitable for overland trails and not the lumbering Hollywood favorite - the Conestoga. However, the family not only loaded their wagon with essential goods, but also with furnishings that may have proven to become a burden on the animals pulling it - including a grandfather clock. The Chisholms never dumped any of their non-essentials along the trail. However, Will, Gideon and an Objibwe woman named Kewedinok they had met in Missouri did find several furnishings that had been abandoned by previous emigrants along the trail. The Chisholms used mules to pull their wagon across the continent. However, a lively debate on mules vs. oxen sprung up between Will and Lester Hackett. The family's mules also attracted the attention of a small group of young Pawnee braves, when the family traveled alone.
In the 1979 miniseries, the Chisholms' westbound journey only took them as far as Fort Laramie. A brief, yet brutal encounter with the four Pawnee braves and a family tragedy convinced them to remain and settle on land near the fort. The miniseries' depiction of the emigrants' encounters with Native American seemed pretty realistic and balanced - except in regard to one matter. "THE CHISHOLMS" featured at least three violent encounters between family members and Native Americans. Family patriarch Hadley Chisholm brawled with a middle-aged Chickasaw man inside an Illinois tavern, which ended with the latter being nearly choked to death. And there were the four Pawnee braves who attacked the family (traveling alone) in order to take their mules and the women. A scene before the attack featured a rather funny conference between the four braves, in which they argued on whether or not to attack the family. The surviving brave of the attack discovered the Chisholms' presence at Fort Laramie in the last episode, and convinced a few other braves to help him rob the family's cabin.
But not all of the Chisholms' encounters with Native Americans were violent. The miniseries revealed Kewedinok's back story of how she became a widow, her violent encounter with white trappers in Western Missouri and her eventual meeting with Will and Gideon. The rest of the family became acquainted with former Army scout Timothy Oates and his Pawnee wife during the early leg of their journey, west of Independence. They also met two Kansa couples traveling eastward by foot in an encounter that led to some friendly trading. The same Kansa couples were later killed by whites, aside from one survivor who was found by Will, Gideon and Kewedinok.
I have only one major complaint about the miniseries' depiction of Native Americans. Many white characters such as Hadley Chisholm, Timothy Oates, and the Fort Laramie trader Andrew Blake never hesitate to express concern about Native Americans consuming alcohol. Hadley was the first to claim that "Indians had no business drinking whiskey". One could have easily dismissed Hadley's words as prejudice on his part. But other white characters also expressed the necessity of denying Native Americans any alcohol. I will not deny that alcoholism has been a problem for many Native Americans. However, it has also been a problem for other ethnic groups, including white Americans of Anglo-Saxon, Scottish or Irish ancestry. This was certainly the case in 19th century America. For example, at least two-thirds of the U.S. Army's officer corps were believed to be heavy drinkers. However, many white Americans (and perhaps other groups) tend to view certain certain groups - which included German and Irish immigrants, African-Americans and especially Native Americans - as naturally heavy drinkers, due to their own prejudices. The screenwriters could have been easily expressing the prejudices of these 19th century white men. But the gravity of Timothy Oates and Andrew Blake's words seemed to hint that this particular prejudice still existed by the late 1970s, when this miniseries was made.
Like "CENTENNIAL", "THE CHISHOLMS" managed to adhere a lot closer to historical accuracy than the first two productions featured in this series. And like the 1978-79 miniseries, only one topic seemed to be the result of Hollywood fiction, instead of fact. In the case of "THE CHISHOLMS", it failed to overcome the myth of Native Americans' susceptibility to alcoholism. Otherwise, the mixture of historical fact and literary fiction proved to be well-balanced.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Below are images from "DEATH IN THE CLOUDS", the 1992 television adaptation of Agatha Christie's 1935 novel. The television movie starred David Suchet as Hercule Poirot:
"DEATH IN THE CLOUDS" (1992) Photo Gallery
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
"JANE EYRE" (1997) Review
There have been many adaptations of Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel, "Jane Eyre". And I do not exaggerate. If I must be honest, I really have no idea of the number of adaptations made. I have seen at least six of them – including his 1997 television movie that aired on the A&E Channel in the U.S. and on ITV in Great Britain.
Directed by Robert Young, and starring Samantha Morton as the titled character and Ciarán Hinds as Edward Rochester;"JANE EYRE" told the story of a young and impoverished English woman forced to become a teacher at a girls’ school in early Victorian England. Bored and dissatisfied with working at Lowood – the very school where she had also spent six years as a student, Jane Eyre places an advertisement that offers herself as a governess in a private household. A Mrs. Fairfax of Thornfield Hall responds to the advertisement and hires Jane. Upon her arrival, Jane discovers that Mrs. Fairfax is Thornfield Hall’s housekeeper and that her new student is Adèle Varens, the French-born ward of the estate’s owner, Edward Rochester. It is not long before Jane finds herself falling in love with Mr. Rochester and being drawn to a mystery surrounding him and a maleficent presence at Thornfield Hall.
Judging from the movie’s 108 minute running time, one could easily see that Richard Hawley’s screenplay had cut a great deal from Brontë’s original novel. Jane’s time at Lowood seemed rushed. Her disappointing reunion with the Reeds was completely cut out. And her time spent with St. John and Diana Rivers was censored heavily. The screenplay even failed to point out Jane’s family connections with the Rivers family and her small financial inheritance. Most of the cuts were made to fit the movie’s short running time and emphasize Jane’s relationship with Rochester. Did it work? That is a good question.
I did have some problems with this production. One hundred and eight minutes struck me as a rather short running time for an adaptation of a literary classic. Hollywood could have gotten away with such a running time during its Golden Age, but I am not so certain that it would have been able to do so, today. The movie’s limited running time was certainly apparent in its failure to depict adult Jane’s reunion with her Reed cousins. Her negative childhood in the family’s household had played an important part in Jane’s formative years. I found it ironic that Hawley’s script was willing to convey Jane’s unhappy childhood with the Reeds, but not follow up with her return to their home in the wake of a family tragedy.
This version also excluded Rochester’s barely veiled contempt toward young Adele, his ward and the daughter of his former mistress. Considering Rochester’s paternalistic attitudes and occasional sexism – conveyed in his penchant for blaming Adele for her mother’s perfidy – by ignoring his hostile attitude toward his ward, Hawley seemed to have robbed some of the landowner’s original character in order to make him more palatable. I could also say the same for Hawley and director Young’s decision to remove the incident involving Jane’s encounter with Rochester disguised as a gypsy woman. And a great deal of Jane’s stay with St. John and Diana Rivers was also deleted from this version. One, it robbed the production of an interesting peek into the St. John Rivers character. Although not a favorite of mine, I have always found him interesting. The brief focus on the Rivers sequence made the movie’s pacing within the last half hour seem rather rushed.
But Hawley’s script and Young’s direction more than made up for these shortcomings in the movie’s portrayal of Jane and Rochester’s relationship. I must admit that I found the development of their relationship fascinating to watch. I especially enjoyed how Jane managed to hold her own against Rochester’s persistent attempts to inflict his will upon her . . . earning his love and respect in the process. And in turn, Rochester manages to earn Jane’s respect and love with his intelligence, wit and gradual recognition of her virtues.
The most fascinating sequence in the entire movie was not, surprising, Rochester’s revelation of his insane wife, Bertha. Mind you, I did find that particular scene rather interesting. For me, the most fascinating scene turned out to be Rochester’s attempt to prevent Jane from leaving Thornfield Hall. He used every emotional response possible – passionate pleadings, contempt, desperation, anger and declarations of love – to get her to stay. He even suggested that she become his mistress and travel to the Continent with him in order for them to stay together. What I found amazing about his actions was his lack of remorse or regret for attempting to draw Jane into a bigamous marriage or make her his mistress. But what I found equally amazing was the fact that Jane’s love for him did not die, despite his words and actions. More importantly, she showed amazing strength by resisting him and his promises of an illicit relationship.
Aside from the movie’s writing and direction, the performances of Samantha Morton and Ciarán Hinds really drove the above mentioned scene. They were simply superb. To be honest, they gave first-rate performances throughout the entire movie. I have yet to see Ruth Wilson’s performance as Jane Eyre. But I must admit that I believe Samantha Morton gave one of the two best portrayals of the character – the other came from Zeulah Clarke in the 1983 adaptation. Morton was barely 19 or 20 when she made this film. And yet, she infused a great deal of subtle strength, warmth and passion into the role. Not only did she managed to create a strong chemistry with her leading man, but also hold her own against him, considering that he happened to be at least 24 years older than her. As for Ciarán Hinds, he also gave a first-rate performance. Mind you, there were moments when Hinds chewed the scenery . . . excessively. Perhaps that came from a theatrical style he had failed to shed for motion pictures around that time. But he did capture all aspects of Edward Rochester’s emotional make-up – both good and bad. I would not go as far to say that Ciarán Hinds was my favorite Edward Rochester. But I must admit that I found him to be a memorable one.
This movie also had the good luck to possess a solid supporting cast. However, I only found myself impressed by only a few. One of those few happened to be Timia Bertome, who portrayed young Adele. She did a very good job in not only capturing her character’s self-absorbed nature, but also Adele’s sunny disposition. Rupert Penry-Jones turned out to be a very interesting St. John Rivers. In fact, I would not hesitate to add that Penry-Jones effectively gave a new twist on the character by portraying him as a superficially friendly soul, but one who still remained arrogant, sanctimonious and pushy. It seemed a pity that the actor was never given a chance to delve even further into St. John’s character. Screenwriter Richard Hawley gave a subtle, yet effective performance as Rochester’s brother-in-law, Richard Mason. And Sophie Reissner is the first actress to make me sympathize over the plight of Rochester's mad West Indian wife, Bertha Mason Rochester. Abigail Cruttenden not only effectively portrayed the beautiful, yet vain Blanche Ingram; but also managed to inject some intelligence into the role. But my favorite supporting performance came from Gemma Jones, who portrayed Thornfield Hall’s housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax. Superficially, she portrayed the housekeeper as a cheerful soul that kept the Rochester household running efficiently. Yet, she also conveyed Mrs. Fairfax’s anxiety and doubt over Jane’s blooming romance with Mr. Rochester and the presence in the manor’s attic with great subtlety. Jones gave the third best performance in them movie, following Morton and Hinds.
For a movie with such a short running time, I must admit that I found its production values very admirable. Cinematographer John McGlashan did an excellent job in injecting a great deal of atmosphere into his shots without allowing the movie to look too gloomy. However, I did have a problem with that slow-motion shot that featured Edward Rochester’s introduction. It seemed out of place and a bit ridiculous. Also, production designer Stephen Fineren and art director John Hill managed to maintain the movie’s atmosphere and setting. I found Susannah Buxton’s costumes surprisingly enjoyable. The costumes perfectly captured the 1830s in the film’s sequences featuring Jane’s childhood with the Reeds and at Lowood School and also the 1840s in which the rest of the movie was set. I especially have to congratulate Buxton for limiting the Jane Eyre character to only a few costumes, which seemed fitting for the character’s social and economic situation.
This version of ”JANE EYRE” was not perfect. I found its 108 minute running time too short for its story. And because of its limited running time, Richard Hawley’s script deleted or shortened certain scenes that I believe were essential to the story and the leading character. But I must admit that despite these shortcomings, I found this adaptation to be first-rate thanks to the focus upon the Jane Eyre/Edward Rochester relationship; a production design that reeked of early Victorian England and an excellent cast led by the superb Samantha Morton and Ciarán Hinds.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
I first wrote this article not long after the end of Season Two of "MAD MEN":
"MAD MEN": Sex and Bobbie Barrett
The fans’ reactions to the character of Bobbie Barrett have always intrigued me. In this day and age – namely the early 21st century – I never understood why they held her in such a low regard. Let me explain.
I have enjoyed Season Two of "MAD MEN" very much. In fact, I would say that I found it even more interesting than Season One. Many fans have commented that the female characters seemed to have developed a lot more in this past season than they did in the first season. And yet . . . when Season Two aired last summer, many fans - both male and female - had expressed a great deal of hostility toward one of the new characters - namely Bobbie Barrett. My first question is . . . why?
Why had there been such a great deal of hostility toward Bobbie? What was it about her that made her hated by many of series' fans? As we all know, Bobbie is the wife and manager of insult comedian, Jimmy Barrett. The Barretts were first introduced in the episode (2.03) "The Benefactor", when a drunken Jimmy, who had been hired as a spokesperson for Utz Potato Chips, insulted the owner's wife. Sterling/Cooper's own Don Draper had to meet with Bobbie to arrange for Jimmy to apologize to the Schillings, the owners of Utz. Don and Bobbie's meeting eventually resulted in both of them having sex inside somebody's car. Later, Bobbie tried to get more money from Don (in a hallway of the restaurant they and Schillings are at for the apology) in exchange for the pay-or-play contract of her husband's. Don manhandled Bobbie and threatened to ruin Jimmy. And Bobbie appeared to enjoy the attention. She later convinced Jimmy to apologize.
Despite this violent encounter, Don and Bobbie's affair continued in the following episode, (2.04) "Three Sundays". After meeting at Sardi's for cocktails in order to celebrate Jimmy's new television series in (2.05) “The New Girl”, the pair encountered Don's former mistress, Rachel Mencken, who got married. They eventually left Sardi's and ended up in a car accident, on their way to the Barretts' beach house in Stony Brook. The affair finally ended in (2.06) “Maidenform” when Don learned from Bobbie that he had developed a reputation for his sexual prowess amongst Manhattan’s career women . . . before leaving her tied up during another sexual encounter. Bobbie was last seen in (2.07) “The Gold Violin”, during a party held at the Stork Club, celebrating Jimmy’s new show.
I have to ask . . . why was Bobbie hated so much by most of the fans? The owner of one blog continued to call her ”the Odious Bobbie” in reviews for nearly episode in which Bobbie appeared. Others have called her sick, twisted, perverse, a skank, a whore, evil and God knows what else. When Bobbie gave Peggy Olson the ”be a woman” advice in how to deal with Don and other professional colleagues, many fans came to the conclusion that she was advising Peggy to use sex to get ahead professionally. In fact, many assumed that Bobbie also used sex to get ahead as a talent agent. And yet, the series has never hinted that Bobbie actually did this. What crime did Bobbie commit to produce such hatred?
One would point out that Bobbie has engaged in extramarital sex. Her affair with Don lasted at least four episodes - from"The Benefactor" to "Maidenform". Yet, Bobbie is not the only female on the show guilty of this:
*Peggy Olson - Sterling-Cooper secretary turned copywriter, who had sex with junior executive Pete Campbell after knowing him for less than 24 hours in Season One's (1.01) "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes". Pete, I might add, had plans to get married the following day and told Peggy before they had sex. Seven episodes later in (1.08) "The Hobo Code", Peggy and a now married Pete had sex again, inside his office. Peggy gave birth to their son, in the Season One finale, (1.13) "The Wheel".
*Midge Daniels - an art illustrator who was engaged in an affair with the very married Don Draper between "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes" and "The Hobo Code". In fact, Midge and Don's affair had been going on for five years by Season One. Don finally ended the affair when he realized that Midge was in love with someone else.
*Joan Holloway - Sterling-Cooper's office manager who was engaged with the very married Roger Sterling, one of the firm's owners, during Season One. When the affair began, the series has not yet revealed. Their affair was already on-going when revealed in (1.06) "Babylon".
*Rachel Mencken - the head of a department store, who hired Sterling-Cooper to revamp her store's image. Although both she and Don became attracted to one another in "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes", their affair began in (1.10) "Long Weekend" and ended in (1.12) "Nixon vs. Kennedy", when Don suggested they run off together for the West Coast and Rachel realized that he did not want to run away with her, he just wanted to run away . . . from some problem. She called him a coward and ended the affair. Later, she married a man named Tilden Katz.
*Hildy - Pete Campbell's secretary who had a one night stand with married Sterling-Cooper junior executive Harry Crane, during an election night party held at the firm's offices in "Nixon vs. Kennedy".
*Jane Siegel - introduced as Don's new secretary in Season Two's (2.05) "The New Girl". After Joan threatened to fire her in "The Gold Violin" for encouraging some of the junior executives to take a peek at owner Betram Cooper's new painting inside his office, she turned to Roger Sterling to intervene on her behalf. They eventually began an affair and Roger eventually left his wife, Mona, for her.
*Betty Draper - Don Draper's ex-model wife, who eventually learned of his affair with Bobbie. She kicked him out of the house for a while. But after discovering that she was pregnant, she had a one-night stand with a stranger at a bar before reconciling with Don.
Well, apparently Bobbie is not the only female guilty of extramarital sex. Hell, she is not the only character guilty of extramarital sex. So, what was wrong with her? Some have complained about her aggressive nature. Which struck me as irrelevant, considering that she is not the only aggressive character in the series. Bobbie might be the only aggressive female in the series. So is that it? Men are allowed to be aggressive, but not women?
Bobbie is also a sexually aggressive woman who happens to like kinky sex. She made that quite clear in the way she wrestled with Don inside his car, and when she failed to be put off by Don's aggressive manhandling of her in "The Benefactor". She also revealed to Don that when she learned about his sexual prowess, she set out to seduce him in order to have sex with him. Is it possible that Bobbie's sexual aggressiveness is a turn off with most fans? Would they prefer if Bobbie was sexually submissive . . . allowing men to seduce her or make the first move? Would they prefer if Bobbie limited her sexual preferences to the Missionary position or bent over, positions considered submissive for women? Or would they prefer if Bobbie was a man?
Not only have male fans condemned Bobbie's characters, but so have a good number of women. The blogger who had nicked named Mrs. Barrett - "Odious Bobbie" is a woman. Even Matt Weiner had joined the act in his interview with critic Alan Sepinwall about Season Two:
"People were upset about Bobbie Barrett, that she wasn't Rachel Menken, and I'm like, she's not Rachel Menken, and he's not in love with her, and he says no. But he should never have slept with that woman."
I am a little perplexed by Weiner's statement. One, he called Bobbie "that woman" - something I do not recall him naming any of the series' other female characters. And two, he stated that Don should have never slept with her. On one level, I agree with him. After all, both Don and Bobbie were married to other people. But why did he say this about Bobbie? Why not about the other women with whom Don had cuckolded Betty? Why not say the same about Midge Daniels, Rachel Mencken, Joy or any of the other women Don had sex with during his marriage to Betty? Why Bobbie?
Bobbie Barrett's reputation with "MAD MEN" has improved since Season Two ended last fall. Many fans have complimented Melinda McGraw for her superb performance of the memorable Bobbie. There have been fans who have finally understood the meaning behind Bobbie's advice to Peggy in "The New Girl". And there have been fans who view both Bobbie and Jimmy Barrett as metaphors used to reveal more of Don's true nature.
But a good number of Bobbie detractors remain. She is also the only one of Don's known mistresses who has received such a strong level of hostility. And I can only wonder if any of this negativity might be a sign that despite the fact that we are now in the 21st century, society still demands that women adhere to some its ideal view on feminine behavior - in both real life and fiction?
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Below are images of "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE", the 1940 adaptation of Jane Austen's 1813 novel. Directed by Robert Z. Leonard and adapted by Aldous Huxley, Helen Jerome and Jane Murfin; the movie starred Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier:
"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" (1940) Photo Gallery
Sunday, July 14, 2013
"BEULAH LAND" (1980) Review
In the fall of 1980, NBC Television had aired a three-part miniseries called, ”BEULAH LAND”. Starring Lesley-Ann Warren, Michael Sarrazin, Dorian Harewood and Paul Rudd, the miniseries told the story of an 19th century Savannah-born woman named Sarah Pennington and her impact upon the Kendrick family and their cotton plantation in Georgia during the years 1827 and 1872.
The miniseries was based upon two novels by Lonnie Coleman - ”Beulah Land” and”Look Away, Beulah Land” It featured a cast that included television and movie stars Eddie Albert, Hope Lange, Michael Sarrazin, Dorian Harewood, Meredith Baxter, James Eachin, Paul Rudd, Don Johnson, Jonathan Frakes, Jenny Agutter, Franklyn Seales and Madeline Stowe.
Recently, I had just finished watching "Beulah Land". To my surprise, I still found it enjoyable. Unlike other antebellum and Civil War sagas like ”NORTH AND SOUTH” and”THE BLUE AND THE GRAY”, the setting for Beulah Land seemed to be restricted to southeast Georgia, with brief forays to Charleston, South Carolina and Atlanta, Georgia. It has its usual stock of family melodrama – sometimes portrayed in an over-the-top manner by some of the cast members. It also gave an interesting look at the ambiguous relationships between slaves and slave owners; whites and blacks – regardless of whether they were free or slave; and between wealthy and poor whites in the antebellum South. There had been accusations by some that ”BEULAH LAND” had skimmed the darker aspects of American slavery or indulged in a negative and clichéd portrayal of the African-American characters. All I can say is that whoever made these accusations had not seen the miniseries. Here are more observations I had made:
1. The period in which Lauretta Pennington (Meredith Baxter) and her son-in-law, Adam Davis (Jonathan Frakes) experienced The Siege of Atlanta, is erroneous. According to the miniseries, the actual siege took place during mid-November 1864. William Sherman’s siege of Atlanta occurred between late July and early September of the same year. Lauretta and Adam left Atlanta around the same time Sherman began his march through Georgia.
2. I have noticed that Lauretta and other citizens fleeing Atlanta hardly seemed to be expressing any signs of panic, while dodging Union shells. Very odd.
3. Jonathan Frakes is a first-class actor, but his Southern accent was not very good in this miniseries. It was a good thing that he had portrayed a Northerner in the ”NORTH AND SOUTH” Trilogy.
4. Unlike most of the actresses in the ”NORTH AND SOUTH” Trilogy, the ones in”BEULAH LAND” must have avoided wigs. Which would account for their loose and natural hairstyles.
5. The first fifteen minutes of ”BEULAH LAND” was set in 1827. Yet the female costumes had resembled fashions of the 1840s. As the miniseries progressed, the costumes became more accurate. But not completely.
6. For me, the following actors and actresses gave the best performances - Lesley Ann Warren (Sarah Pennington Kendrick), Dorian Harewood (Floyd), Eddie Albert (Felix Kendrick), Paul Rudd (Leon Kendrick), Paul Shenar (Roscoe Coltray), James McEachin (Ezra), Jean Foster (Pauline), Don Johnson (Bonnard Davis), Hope Lange (Deborah Kendrick),Franklyn Seales (Roman Kendrick), Allyn Ann McLerie (Edna Davis) and Jenny Agutter (Lizzie Coltray).
7. Meredith Baxter would have made the list, if it were not for her occasional bouts of hammy acting. However, I have noticed a good number of other performers like Illene Graff (Annabel Davis), Clarice Taylor (Lovey), Laurie Prange (Rachel Kendrick Davis), K.C. Martel (Young Benjamin Davis), and especially Bibi Osterwald (Nell Kendrick) really tend to chew the scenery. Along with a good number of performers in minor roles.
8. Below is a list of what I consider to be the best scenes:
*Selma (Madeleine Stowe) and Bonnard's wedding night
*Slaves' talk in the kitchen during Sarah and Leon’s wedding reception
*Sarah and Floyd become aware of their attraction toward one another
*Lauretta's revelation of her affair with Leon
*Rachel and Edna Davis's deaths
*Death of corrupt Union sergeant
”BEULAH LAND” is not what I would call a work of art. And to be frank, I can say the same about the novels in which it is based upon. As for this belief that the African-American characters were portrayed in an embarrassing and clichéd manner as ”docile and happy” slaves – it is not true. The only times the slaves appeared ”happy and docile”over their situation, occurred when they were faking this attitude toward their white owners. Although ”BEULAH LAND” is not great television, I have to give it kudos for its accurate portrayal of the surprisingly complex and ambiguous society of the antebellum South. I say . . . give it a shot.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
The following is a list of minor notes and observations that came to me, during my recent viewing of “Episode III: Revenge of the Sith”. I hope that you enjoy them:
Notes and Observations on "STAR WARS: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith"
*How ironic that this story begins with the “rescue” of Chancellor Palpatine – the very person who has exploited the Jedi’s weaknesses to bring about their downfall. I wonder if both Anakin and Obi-Wan ever came to regret the success of their mission.
*I noticed how both Anakin and Obi-Wan seemed to be flying in perfect sync with each other in the opening sequences. And yet, as they get closer to Palpatine (who is “being held prisoner” aboard Grievous’ ship), things begin to go wrong. Perhaps this situation is an allegory of their relationship at this stage of the story.
*”Flying is for droids.” – Odd comment for Obi-Wan to make, considering that his former padawan is such an excellent pilot. Does this mean that Anakin can be viewed as a future droid?
*Poor R4-D17. At least he had three good years with Obi-Wan
*The usually cautious Obi-Wan zips out of his starfighter cockpit in a flash and starts striking down droids. Meanwhile, Anakin takes his time to unfasten his safety restraint and climb out of his cockpit. This might possibly be a sign of how the two men have adopted each other’s way of handling matters. This also reminds me of how both men had dealt with their “animus” nature inside the Geonosis arena in AOTC.
*Notice how both Count Dooku and General Grievous seem to foreshadow Anakin’s future as Darth Vader. Count Dooku represented the Jedi Knight/Master who became Palpatine’s Sith apprentice. Grievous represented the cyborg that Anakin will become.
*R2-D2’s efforts to hide from the Separatist droids must be one of the funniest sequences I have ever seen in a STAR WARS movie.
*”Uh, no loose wire jokes.” – Dear Anakin. It’s nice to see there is one advocate for the droids.
*The Chancellor’s seat on Grievous’ ship strongly reminds me of his throne in ROTJ.
*”Chancellor Palpatine, Sith Lords are our specialty.” – Oh dear. Obi-Wan seemed to be in danger of becoming too self-assured. The last time he had believed that he and Anakin could take out Dooku, Yoda ended up saving them.
*”Good! Twice the pride. Double the fall.” – It seems that Count Dooku is also suffering from the same kind of arrogance.
*Anakin tells Dooku that he has become twice as powerful, since their last encounter on Geonosis. How is it that despite the loss of an arm, his connection to the Force has strengthened? Makes me wonder if Lucas’ comment that Anakin’s loss of limbs on Mustafar had weakened his connection to the Force is a lot of bull.
*Anakin and Obi-Wan’s pride and aggression nearly cost them in their second duel against Dooku. Only Dooku’s own pride and arrogance saved them in the long run.
*Dooku had been right to criticize Anakin for not using his anger in their lightsaber duel. When Anakin finally did, he pretty much had it in control . . . until Palpatine convinced him to lose that control and kill Dooku.
*I also noticed that unlike Obi-Wan and Dooku, Anakin’s lightsaber skills do not seem as flashy as theirs. His style seemed to be similar to Qui-Gon and Mace – very direct and with very little complicated moves.
*I could not help but wonder what was going through Palpatine’s mind, when his life – along with Anakin and Obi-Wan’s – were in danger, while trying to escape from Grievous’ ship.
*”General Grievous . . . you’re shorter than I had expected.” – Hmm, now I see from whom Leia had inherited her sardonic manner.
*Has Obi-Wan become a little too cocky about his skills? He had chopped off the head of a Magna guard and walked away . . . only to be surprised to learn that it could still fight.
*Meanwhile, Anakin managed to show a predilection for patience – only in the wrong situation. It almost seemed as if an alien spirit had taken control of his body. Obi-Wan noticed and quite wisely disapproved. He knew that Anakin was not being true to himself.
*General Grievous’s escape from his ship struck me as being quite daring and masterful. I could also say the same about how Anakin had landed Grievous’ ship on Coruscant. As Obi-Wan said, “Another happy landing.”
*For the first time, I had noticed that the skies of Coruscant were cloudy . . . overcast. They seemed to hint the rising storm that will eventually erupt throughout the Republic.
*Was that Lucas’ daughter – a blue-skinned alien – amongst the welcoming committee for Palpatine?
*This is rare – Leia’s future father and stepfather actually have a scene together.
*Although Padme seemed to be wearing Leia’s infamous bun hairdo, I noticed that her hairstyle is slightly different.
*The moment that Anakin expressed his desire to end the deception over his marriage to Padme, she quickly opposed the idea. She must have been afraid of facing the consequences of their deception.
*John Williams’ score for this movie seemed darker and more martial than anything else heard in a STAR WARS movie. Has anyone else noticed this?
*I simply love the shot of Padme brushing her hair on the balcony, while Anakin watches her. Very romantic.
*”So, love has blinded you?” –Padme may have been speaking of Anakin. Then again, she may have been speaking of herself. Or both.
*It is interesting that Anakin has been reluctant to express his troubles to Padme. This must have been the case ever since his murder of the Tusken Raiders on Tatooine. One would say that all is not paradise with their marriage. But I must say . . . if their marriage had seemed like paradise, I would have been suspicious.
*The scene between Anakin and Yoda struck me as being rather cold. I wonder if this had been the first time Anakin had sought the counsel of the Jedi Master.
*I am curious as to why Obi-Wan had never exerted more effort to discourage Anakin’s friendship with Palpatine.
*I find it interesting that Anakin seemed more disturbed by the Jedi Council’s suggestion that he spy upon Palpatine than he was by the latter’s suggestion that he does the same with the Jedi Council. Especially after he had insisted that Anakin join the Council.
*After Mace reveals the Jedi Council’s decision not to make Anakin a Master, I noticed that both he and Obi-Wan seemed to express momentary flashes of guilt. And Yoda seemed to be making an attempt to distance himself from Anakin’s reaction by closing his eyes for a brief moment.
*Of course, Anakin’s reaction to the decision did seem very immature, as indicated by Mace’s order that he take a seat. But after Anakin had apologized for his outburst, Obi-Wan shook his head in silent disapproval of his former padawan.
*”It’s what you wanted. Your friendship with Chancellor Palpatine seemed to have paid off.” – For those who claimed that Obi-Wan understood Anakin very well, really need to read the above statement or watch that scene again. Why would Obi-Wan assume that Anakin had used his friendship with Palpatine to become a member of the Jedi Council? Why would he accuse Anakin of harboring ambitions to become a Council member, when he had admonished Qui-Gon, years earlier, for failing to reach such an achievement? What a curious man.
*If Obi-Wan was against Anakin spying on Palpatine, why did he insist that the young Knight accept the assignment in the first place? And why didn’t Anakin act on his feelings and refuse the assignment? I believe this scene is a clear case of Obi-Wan failing Anakin . . . and Anakin failing himself.
*Someone once stated that Padme had maintained her idealism of the Republic to the bitter end. And yet, in one scene, she tries to convince Anakin that the Republic was in danger of becoming the very evil she had opposed for so long.
*Why did Padme ask Anakin to discuss ending the war with Palpatine? I can see why he was upset. Like the Jedi, Padme seemed willing to use Anakin to further her own agenda regarding Palpatine.
*I noticed that Padme managed to change the subject from politics to personal matters in the same way Anakin had done during the Naboo picnic scene in AOTC.
*”All who gain power are afraid to lose it.” – Who would have thought that Palpatine would utter the very words that seemed to be the theme of the Prequel Trilogy. His words – more or less – seemed to describe all of the major characters. Including himself.
*Anakin must have been very desperate to believe Palpatine’s claim that he had knowledge of a way to save Padme through the use of the Force.
*Why was the Jedi Council so determined to refrain Anakin from going to Utaapau? Was their decision a reaction to the revelation that Palpatine had suggested that Anakin take part in that military operation?
*I wonder what was going through Anakin’s mind when he and Obi-Wan spoke for the last time as friends.
*So, not only does Anakin believe that the Jedi Council mistrust him, but also Obi-Wan. And I don’t know if he was right or wrong.
*”You expect too much of yourself.” – Padme was right. No wonder Anakin was determined to save her from death. A way to make up for Shmi’s death, perhaps?
*I like the look and style of the official that greeted Obi-Wan on Utaapau.
*Once again, Obi-Wan manages to remind me that he can be a little too arrogant in dealing with opponents. Facing Grievous turned out to be more difficult than had possibly imagined. Even if the Separatist general could barely use a lightsaber with barely any skill.
*I find it fascinating that the Jedi Council would even consider getting rid of Palpatine without the Senate’s authority. Even if it meant accepting Ki-Adi Mundi’s suggestion that the Council take control of the Senate.
*Palpatine was right that one must accept all aspects of nature – both the light and the dark. What he had failed to add was that the Sith were just as narrow and dogmatic in their view of the Force, as the Jedi.
*”So uncivilized.” - There’s nothing like a good blaster at your side, eh Obi-Wan?
*”For your own good, stay out of this affair. I sense a great deal of confusion in you, young Skywalker. There is much fear that clouds your judgment.” – Many people believe that Mace was wrong not to include Anakin in Palpatine’s arrest. I feel differently. Just listening to his words, made me realize that he had accurately sensed Anakin’s emotional state. If only he had heeded Mace’s words, Anakin would not have ended up with more blood on his hands. For those who say that Anakin would have destroyed Palpatine if Mace had allowed him to participate in the arrest. In truth, no one really knows what would have happened. Unfortunately, no one wants to admit this.
*Mace and the other three Jedi Knights did activate their lightsabers first. If they were there to arrest Palpatine, surely they should have received permission from the Senate. However, I noticed that Palpatine was the first to attack. And he nearly paid the price for his act of aggression.
*Aside from Mace, Palpatine failed to immediately kill Kit Fisto. And all because Mace had briefly intervened.
*Anakin arrived when Mace declared Palpatine under arrest. Then the latter attacked the Jedi Master with Force electrokinesis. Because he had disobeyed Mace, Anakin took his final steps into becoming a Sith Lord.
*”To cheat death is a power that only one has achieved.” Who was Palpatine talking about? Surely not Plageuis, who had failed to cheat death, thanks to his apprentice. And Palpatine knew nothing of Qui-Gon’s spiritual achievement.
*Although Anakin seemed willing to assist and agree with Palpatine, his face seemed to express great reluctance.
*Magnificent shot of Anakin leading the clone troopers to the Jedi Temple.
*Probably one of the most heartbreaking sequences in the entire STAR WARS saga is the execution of Order 66.
*What sort of vehicles were the clone troopers riding during their search for Yoda on Kashyyyk?
*I wonder what would have happened if Anakin had not told Padme of his intent to travel to Mustafar?
*Yoda had expressed belief that it would be easy for him and Obi-Wan to infiltrate the Jedi Temple. Yet, the two Jedi Masters found themselves forced to battle clone troopers guarding the Temple.
*It is interesting that Anakin’s murder of the Separatists leaders occurred around the same time as Palpatine’s declaration as the galaxy’s first emperor.
*Once more, a Jedi Master decides to move against Palpatine without the Senate’s consent. This time, it is Yoda, who decides to kill the Sith Lord. No wonder it was easy for Anakin to view the Jedi as a threat to the galaxy.
*Padme looked particularly heartbroken when Obi-Wan informed her that Anakin had become a Sith Lord.
*Why couldn’t Obi-Wan simply planted a tracker on Padme’s ship, instead of stowing away?
*You can hear signs of the Anakin/Padme love theme from AOTC, when Padme arrived on Mustafar.
*Anakin had an odd, calm expression on his face, while Padme was talking to him. And when he began talking about ruling the galaxy, his expression became even odder.
*Boy, Obi-Wan’s appearance on Mustafar was badly time. Which makes me question his decision to stowaway aboard Padme’s skiff even more.
*I forgot that Padme had been unconscious during Anakin and Obi-Wan’s duel.
*It is interesting that Obi-Wan was the first to light up his lightsaber.
*I now realize that Anakin and Obi-Wan’s duel was not about good versus evil. I believe that it was about years of resentment and anger finally exploding between two men who once loved each other as brothers, despite their disagreements. Hence, the use of blue lightsabers by both and the exploding fire and lava that surrounded them.
*Anakin and Obi-Wan’s out-of-control emotions during the duel seemed like a clear indication of why both had failed to achieve their goals. Anakin’s rash move near the lava bank had resulted in the loss of his legs and his other arm – and spending the rest of his life in the suit. Obi-Wan’s failure to immediately kill Anakin on that lava bank resulted in Vader’s impact upon the galaxy for over the next twenty years . . . and Obi-Wan’s eventual death.
*Hayden Christensen and Ewan McGregor’s moved very fast in their duel scenes. And I’m not simply referring to what was shown on the movie screen. I’m also referring to their practice sessions shown in the DVD’s Special Features disk.
*”Your arrogance blinds you, Master Yoda.” – I hate to say this, but Palpatine was right. But he could have also been referring to himself. As for Yoda, he made the worse mistake of attacking Palpatine’s guards upon entering the Emperor’s office. He had attacked the guards in the presence of Mas Amedda, the Senate’s leader. An accusation of an assassination attempt by the Jedi would not be far from the truth.
*”My little green friend.” – I would not be surprised if those words had pissed off Yoda.
*Anakin and Obi-Wan’s duel lasted longer than Yoda and Palpatine’s.
*”You were the Chosen One!” – Obi-Wan went into full rant after chopping off Anakin’s limbs. This is an example that he was just as emotional as Anakin during the duel. Of course, I cannot help but wonder why he did not kill Anakin, and allowed the latter to suffer a possible prolonged death on the lava bank.
*Palpatine’s return to Coruscant with a wounded Anakin happened in the midst of fierce rain storm. This scene reminded of that old lady’s words to the nine year-old Anakin in TPM – “Storm’s comin, Ani!” This had occurred before Maul’s arrival on Tatooine. Palpatine and Anakin’s return in the first mentioned scene truly indicated that the storm has finally struck the Republic.
*The expression on Anakin’s face as his Vader mask was being lowered upon him was truly heartbreaking.
*”There’s still good in him.” – If only Obi-Wan had heeded Padme’s words. But . . . he thought that Anakin was dead. On the other hand, the infant Luke did listen. This was perhaps, Padme’s greatest contribution.
*Palpatine seemed pleased by Anakin’s show of power inside the infirmary, when the latter learned of Padme’s death.
*The movie’s last shot of Padme is the japoor snippet that Anakin had given her, years ago.
*I think I must have cried during the movie’s last ten to fifteen minutes. Oh well. On to A NEW HOPE.