"Misunderstanding Willie Scott"

"MISUNDERSTANDING WILLIE SCOTT"

One of the special feature clips for my "LAST CRUSADE" DVD featured a take on the characters featured in the Indiana Jones franchise - love interests, villains and side kicks. When "Indy’s Friends and Enemies" focused on Indy’s love interests, the subject eventually came upon the leading lady of "TEMPLE OF DOOM" - Willie Scott. 

Now, I am aware that poor Willie has never been popular with the majority of Indiana Jones fans. She is probably the least popular of Indy’s three love interests in the films. I just want to make it clear that I do not share this opinion of Willie. I have liked her since I first saw "TEMPLE OF DOOM" twenty-four years ago. But while watching this special feature about the franchise’s characters, it occurred to me that not only was Willie universally disliked, there was a possibility that she was misunderstood as well.

In "Indy’s Friends and Enemies", the franchise’s director, Steven Spielberg, made a monumentally stupid and misguided comment about Willie Scott. He had described Willie as a showgirl who also happened to come from a rich and privileged background. In other words, Willie was a showgirl who was originally a rich and spoiled woman who was not used to the great outdoors. Either Spielberg was suffering from senility when he did this interview, or he had never really paid much attention to the character’s background.

During their journey to Pankot Palace, Willie revealed to Indy and Short Round that he grandfather had been a magician who died a poor man. Near the end of the film, she made it clear that she came from Missouri:

"I’m going home to Missouri, where they never ever feed you snake before ripping your heart out and lowering you into hot pits. This is not my idea of a swell time!"

And according to the novelization for ”THE TEMPLE OF DOOM”, Willie Scott had been born on a farm in Missouri. She had ambitions to become a success in Hollywood. Unable to get a break in Depression-era Hollywood, she made her way to Shanghai, where she became a nightclub singer. Considering that she had been born on a farm, one would assume that she was used to the outdoors. However, it seemed apparent to me that a life on a dirt farm was not for her and she wanted the finer things in life – including a successful career as an entertainer of sorts. 

I do not think that Willie was not used to being pampered. I suspect that she WANTED a life of privilege. She wanted to be pampered. And Willie was prepared to latch herself to anyone able to give her that life. Which would explain her becoming the mistress of the rich Shanghai gangster, Lao Che … or her interest in the Maharajah of Pankot before learning that he was a child.

Willie Scott was not what Steven Spielberg had described her - a spoiled, rich woman used to a life of privilege. She was a woman from a poor background who wanted a better life for herself … at almost any cost. Willie was a gold digger, plain and simple. How this managed to escape Spielberg is beyond me.

"TAKEN AT THE FLOOD" (2006) Review

If you have never read Agatha Christie's novel, "Taken at the Flood" or seen the 2006 television adaptation, I suggest that you read no futher. This review contains major spoilers.


"TAKEN AT THE FLOOD" (2006) Review

Written in 1948, Agatha Christie's novel called "Taken at the Flood" told the story of the Cloade family in post-war Britian, who depends upon the good will of their cousin-in-law, Rosaleen Hunter Cloade; after her husband and their cousin is killed in an air raid during World War II. When her controlling brother, David, refuses to share Gordon Cloade’s fortunate, the family enlists Poirot’s help to prove that Rosaleen’s missing first husband, Robert Underhay, might not be dead. Although the novel received mixed reviews when it was first published, it now seems highly regarded by many of Christie’s modern day fans.

Nearly sixty years later, screenwriter Guy Andrews adapted the novel for ITV’s "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" series. However, Andrews set the novel in the 1930s, which has been the traditional setting for the novel. In doing so, Andrews changed the aspect of Gordon Cloade's death, making it an act of murder, instead of a wartime casualty. This change also removed the ennui that a few of the characters experienced in a post-war world. Other changes were made in the screenplay. The character of Rosaleen Cloade became a morphine addict. She also survived a morphine overdose. Also, Andrews changed the fate of the story's leading female character, Lynn Marchmont.

I really wish that Andrews and director Andy Wilson had maintained the novel's original setting of post-war Britain. It would not have hurt if "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" broke away from its usual mid-1930s setting to air a story set ten years later. Most adaptations of the Jane Marple novels have always been set in the 1950s. Yet, both adaptations of Christie's novel, "A Murder Is Announced" managed to break away from that decade and set the story in its proper setting - mid-to-late 1940s. By changing the setting and making Gordon Cloade a murder victim, Andrews and Wilson transformed the original novel's theme, which centered on how some of the characters took advantage of a certain situation to "make their own fortune". This theme brings to mind the story's title and its origin - a quotation from William Shakespeare's novel, "Julius Caesar". The movie also established a friendship between the Cloade family and Hercule Poirot. And if I must be honest, I find this friendship implausible. The Cloade family struck me as arrogant, greedy, corrupt, and a slightly poisonous bunch. I find it hard to believe Poirot would befriend any member of that family - with the exception of the leading female character, Lynn Marchmont.

Despite my misgivings over the movie's setting and some of the changes, I must admit that most of it was very intriguing. Despite being an unpleasant bunch, the Cloade family provided the story with some very colorful characters that include a telephone harasser and a drug addict. Lynn is engaged to her cousin Rowley Cloade and it is clear that she does not harbor any real love for him . . . even before meeting Rosaleen's brother David. And instead of being a war veteran and former member of the Women’s Royal Naval Service, Lynn is merely a returnee from one of Britain’s colonies in Africa Actress Amanda Douge portrayed Lynn and she portrayed the character with great warmth and style.

But David Hunter proved to be the most interesting and well-written character in the story. I would go further and state that he might be one of the most complex characters that Christie ever created. David is blunt to a fault, arrogant and has no problems in expressing his dislike and contempt toward the Cloades. He does not make an effort to hide some of his less than pleasant personality traits and is a borderline bully, who is controlling toward his sister. The character provided actor Elliot Cowan with probably one of his better roles . . . and he made the most of it with great skill. When David Hunter and Lynn Marchmont become romantically involved, Cowan ended up creating great screen chemistry with Douge.

The mystery over Rosaleen Cloade's marital state proved to be rather engaging. One is inclined to believe both Rosaleen and David that she was widowed before marrying Gordon Cloade. But when a man named Enoch Arden appeared and claimed that Rosaleen's first husband is still alive, the audience's belief in the Hunter siblings is shaken. But when Arden is killed violently, David becomes suspect Number One with the police and Poirot.

I have already commented upon Elliot Cowan and Amanda Douge's performances in "TAKEN AT THE FLOOD". I was also impressed by Patrick Baladi's portrayal of Lynn's obsessive and intense fiancé, Rowley Cloade. Eva Birthistle was subtle and unforgettable as David's nervous and very reserved sister, the wealthy widow Rosaleen Cloade. And veteran performers such as Jenny Agutter, Penny Downie, Tim Pigott-Smith, Pip Torrens and a deliciously over-the-top Celia Imrie provided great support. I also have to commend David Suchet, who gave his usual first-rate performance as detective Hercule Poirot. If there is one virtue that "TAKEN AT THE FLOOD" possessed, it was a first-rate cast.

"TAKEN AT THE FLOOD" could have been a first-rate movie. But I believe that both Andrews and Wilson dropped the ball in the movie's last thirty minutes. Their biggest mistake was adhering closely to Christie's original novel. I am aware of some of the changes they made. I had no problem with some of the changes. Other changes really turned me off. But despite these changes, they managed to somewhat remain faithful to the novel. As as far as I am concerned, this was a major mistake.

In the novel, David Hunter ended up murdering Rosaleen Cloade by giving her a drug overdose. Poirot managed to reveal that Rosaleen was merely his sister's former housemaid, who became an accomplice in a scam to assume control of the Cloade fortune. Andrews' script changed this by allowing Rosaleen to attempt suicide and survive. Instead, they had David guilty of murdering his sister and brother-in-law in a house bombing featured at the beginning of the movie. Worse, Poirot claimed that David had deliberately impregnated the false Rosaleen and forced her to get an abortion in order to control her. Poirot also hinted he was behind Rosaleen's suicide attempt. How he came to this conclusion is beyond me. In other words, Andrews' script transformed David Hunter from a swindler and killer of his accomplice to an out-and-out monster. In the end, he was hanged for his crimes.

Both Christie and Andrews' handling of the Cloade family proved to be even more incredible. Mrs. Frances Cloade had recruited a relation to call himself as Enoch Arden and claim that Robert Underhay was still alive. Another member of the Cloade family recruited a Major Porter to lie on the stand and make the same claim. Later, Major Porter committed suicide.

The murder of Enoch Arden proved to be an accident. In other words, Rowley Cloade discovered that Arden was the relation of his cousin-in-law, Mrs. Frances Cloade, reacted with anger and attacked the man. Rowley's attack led to Arden's fall and his death. Then Rowley proceeded to frame David by deliberately smashing in Arden's head in order to make it resemble murder. Upon Lynn's revelation that she was in love with David Hunter, Rowley lost his temper and tried to strangle her. Poirot and a police officer managed to stop him. One, Rowley was guilty of manslaughter, when he caused Enoch Arden's death. Two, he was guilty of interfering with a police investigation, when he tried to frame David for murder. And three, he was also guilty of assault and attempted murder of Lynn Marchmont. Once Poirot discovered that Arden's death was an accident caused by Rowley, he immediately dismissed the incident and focused his attention on David Hunter's crimes.

In the end, Rowley was never arrested, prosecuted or punished for his crimes. Frances Cloade was never questioned by the police for producing the phony Enoch Arden in an attempt to commit fraud. And the member of the Cloade family who had recruited Major Porter was never prosecuted for attempting to perpetrate a fraud against the courts. The only positive change that Andrews made to Christie's novel was allowing Lynn's rejection of Rowley to remain permanent. In the novel, Lynn decided that she loved Rowley after all, following his attempt to kill her. She found his violent behavior appealing and romantic.

I sometimes wonder if Christie became aware of her negative portrayal of the upper-class Cloades, while writing "Taken at the Flood", and became determined to maintain the social status quo in the novel. And she achieved this by ensuring that the lower-class David Hunter proved to be the real criminal and no member of the Cloade family end up arrested or prosecuted for their crimes. In other words, Christie allowed her conservative sensibilities to really get the best of her. Aside from the permanent separation between Lynn and Rowley, Andrews and Wilson embraced Christie's conservatism to the extreme. And it left a bitter taste in my mouth. No wonder "TAKEN AT THE FLOOD" proved to be one of the most disappointing Christie stories I have ever come across.

"THE MISSISSIPPI GAMBLER" (1953) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the 1953 adventure film, "THE MISSISSIPPI GAMBLER". Directed by Rudolph Maté, the movie starred Tyrone Power: 



"THE MISSISSIPPI GAMBLER" (1953) Photo Gallery

"THE FOUR FEATHERS" (1977) Image Gallery

Below are images from "THE FOUR FEATHERS", the 1977 television adaptation of A.E.W. Mason's 1902 novel. Directed by Don Sharp, the movie starred Beau Bridges, Jane Seymour and Robert Powell:


"THE FOUR FEATHERS" (1977) Image Gallery

Notes and Observations on "STAR WARS: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back"

Notes and Observations of "STAR WARS: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back"

The following is a list of minor notes and observations that came to me, during my recent viewing of “Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back”. I hope that you enjoy them:

*Exactly who was in command of the Rebel Alliance base on Hoth – Leia or General Rieekan?

*What was Leia doing on Hoth with the Rebel Alliance military personnel? Why wasn’t she with the other political Rebel leaders?

*Ah yes! The ”I’ just as soon kiss a Wookie!” dialogue between Leia and Han. Charming, although slightly . . . childish.

*How . . . or should I say when did Han and Leia reach the point in which they became attracted to one another?

*It was interesting to see how Obi-Wan’s ghost faded with the emergence of Han on a tauntaun.

*”Why, you stuck up,... half-witted... scruffy-looking ...nerf-herder!” - Another charming, yet childish exchange between Leia and Han.

*Jealousy and ambition seem quite obvious within the Imperial command structure, if General Ozzel’s glare at Piett is anything to go by.

*I find it interesting that the exchange between Luke and Han before the commencement of the Battle of Hoth would be the last between them for at least a year.

*Vader’s ability to strangle Ozzel with the Force from such a large distance seemed very impressive for someone whose strength with the Force has been weakened.

*The pilots’ point of view of the Battle of Hoth seemed like another cliché of a World War II dogfight . . . like the Battle of Yavin.

*Luke was made commander of the Rebel pilots because he had destroyed the Death Star . . . with Han’s help? What about Wedge, who was also a competent pilot and more experienced?

*The Imperial AT-AT Walkers remind me of the Oliphaunts from the ”LORD OF THE RINGS” saga.

*Wasn’t Leia taking her duty just a bit too seriously by delaying her departure from Hoth?

*I noticed that Han never seemed to follow the ladies first rule. When he, Leia and Chewie and Threepio had escaped both from Hoth and the exogorth in the asteroid field, he made sure that he boarded the Millennium Falcon first. Not exactly a man of the Old Republic.

*Han really revealed how much of a hot shot pilot he was in this movie.

*”Into the belly of the beast” - This metaphor seemed to fit the Falcon’s entry into exogorth even more than Luke, Han and Leia’s brief adventures inside the Death Star’s trash compactor.

*The audience got a brief glimpse of the price Anakin paid for his past mistakes – namely his scalded head.

*”Feel like what?” - Yoda’s first words in any ”STAR WARS” movie.

*”Great warrior? Hmmm . . . wars do not make one great.” - Ironic words from the very being who led the first attack, during the first battle of the Clone Wars. His words also revealed the true Yoda behind the comic façade. I think Luke may have been too impatient or full of himself to notice.

*”You like me because I'm a scoundrel. There aren't enough scoundrels in your life.” - One can only assume that Leia’s age – 22 years – and limited experience with men would explain why she bought that bilge pouring from Han’s mouth.

*”He’s just a boy. Obi-Wan can no longer help him.” - Surely these words must have hinted to Palpatine that Vader had been aware of Luke for some time?

*I see that Clive Revill has been replaced by Ian McDiarmid as the Emperor Palpatine in this version of the movie. Which makes sense, considering that McDiarmid is more identified with the role.

*”This one a long time have I watched. All his life has he looked away . . . to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was.” - I believe that Yoda had just described himself and many other Jedi Masters and Knights of the Old Republic, nearly a quarter of a century ago. If he and Obi-Wan could learn to overcome this distraction from the future, why not Luke? Why was Yoda so reluctant to teach Luke? Is it Luke he doubts? Or himself as a teacher?

*”If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice.” - I hope that Yoda was trying to say that a person will always be affected by his or her earlier decision to take a dark path or commit dark acts. Because if he was trying to say that a person will always remain evil, after taking the dark path, I must say that I disagree.

*Han used a neat trick to evade the sensors of Captain Needa’s starship, after the Falcon left the asteroid field.

*”Luminous beings are we. Not this crude matter.” - A favorite line of mine.

*It was very clever of Han to attach the Falcon to an Imperial starship before disguising it as garbage to be disposed with the other. Unfortunately for him, Boba Fett had witnessed a similar trick pulled by Obi-Wan near Geonosis, some 25 years ago. Even worse, it is a shame that Han was so busy congratulating himself over his trick that he failed to realize that Fett was tracking him.

*”Through the Force, things you will see. Other places. The future... the past. Old friends long gone.” - I wonder if Yoda was thinking of Mace Windu.

*According to LucasFilm, it took the Falcon three months to reach Bespin without a hyperdrive. If only Lucas and the others had made this clear in the movie.

*The Falcon was practically escorted to one of the landing platforms on Cloud City. I wonder why.

*Great entrance for Billy Dee Williams as Lando Calrissian.

*Was CP-30 really that dense in that he would be so easily distracted from the group by the sound of an R2 unit?

*”Stopped they must be. On this all depends. Only a fully trained Jedi Knight with the Force as his ally will conquer Vader and his Emperor”. - Did that mean Yoda had never intended for Luke to help Anakin find redemption?

*Apparently, the original deal between Vader and Lando did not include Han being turned over to Boba Fett. And later, Vader broke his word and insisted that Leia and Chewie accompany him. Interesting. It is a miracle that the Sith Lord did not renege on the deal even further by destroying Bespin and its population.

*And why did Han and Leia fail to understand the situation that Vader had placed Lando? Were they too blinded by anger?

*I find it interesting that not once did Vader set eyes upon C3-P0, his own creation. Why? Because Chewbacca had the droid strapped to his back.

*How stupid were Leia and Chewbacca? It was obvious that Lando had released them from Vader’s stormtroopers. Yet, all they could do was lose their tempers. Chewbacca immediately began to strangle Lando and Leia encouraged the Wookie. Because their temper tantrums, they prevented Lando from rescuing Han from Boba Fett.

*I must admit that I found the dialogue during the Bespin duel rather irritating. The most important thing about the duel seemed to be Vader’s revelation as Anakin Skywalker . . . after the fighting stopped.

*Vader’s reaction to Luke and Leia’s escape from Bespin was an excellent moment of silent acting on David Prowse’s part. With his use of body language, he managed to express Vader’s regret over losing Luke . . . and the beginning of Anakin Skywalker’s resurgence.

"THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD" (2000) Review

"THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD" (2000) Review

As many fans of Agatha Christie are aware, one of her most highly acclaimed and controversial novels is "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd". I had checked the Internet to see how many adaptations had been made from well-regarded tale. I was surprised to learn there were at least seven adaptations, considering its difficult plot twist. The third to the last adaptation proved to be the last adaptation was the 103-minute television movie that aired on ITV's "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" in 2000.

"THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD" seemed like your typical Christie novel. After retiring to the small village of King's Abbott, Belgian-born detective Hercule Poirot stumbles across a mystery in which an old friend of his, an industrialist named Roger Ackroyd has been murdered. Sometime earlier, another friend of Ackroyd, a widow named Mrs. Ferrars, had committed suicide when she is suspected of killing her husband. Another murder occurs before Poirot, with the help of Chief Inspector Japp and local physician Dr. James Sheppard, solves the murder.

Screenwriter Clive Exton made some changes to Christie's novel. He deleted a few characters, changed Poirot's relationship with Ackroyd from simply neighbor to old friend, and added Chief Inspector Japp to the cast of characters. This last change greatly affected the story's narrative. Christie's novel was narrated by the Dr. Sheppard character. By having Japp replace him as Poirot's closest ally, Exton nearly made Dr. Sheppard irrelevant. Exton ended up doing the same to a character in 2001's "MURDER IN MESOPOTAMIA", when he added Arthur Hastings to the story, allowing the story's true narrator, Nurse Amy Leatheran to become irrelevant. However, the addition of Japp to "THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD" transformed Christie's story from a unique tale, to something . . . well, rather typical. With the addition of Japp, the story became another typical Christie murder mystery set in a small village. Pity.

I also believe that Exton damaged Christie's original narrative even further with other major changes. One, he revealed major hints of the killer's identity before Poirot could expose the former. And once the killer was exposed, audiences were subjected to a theatrical and rather silly chase scene throughout Ackroyd's factoy, involving the police. And if I must be honest, I found myself wondering why on earth Poirot had decided to retire as a detective and move to the country in the first place. How long had he been gone before his reunion with Chief Inspector Japp?

Was there anything I like about "THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD"? I thought it was a tasteful movie, thanks to Rob Harris' production designs that beautifully recaptured rural England in the mid-1930s. His work was ably complimented by Katie Driscoll's art direction, and Charlotte Holdich's costume designs. In fact, I can honestly say that the latter did a first-rate job in not only creating costumes for that particular era, but specifically for each character. Although some of Exton's narrative changes robbed the story of its famous plot twist and featured a badly-handled revelation of the murderer, I will give kudos to the screenwriter for creating a plausible murder mystery that made it somewhat difficult for any viewer not familiar with Christie's novel, to guess the killer's identity . . . to a certain point.

The movie also featured some solid performances. David Suchet gave his usual competent performance as Hercule Poirot. He had one rather amusing scene in which the Belgian detective struggled with the vegetable marrows in his garden. I could say the same about Philip Jackson's performance as Inspector Japp. Both Oliver Ford-Davies and Selina Cadell were amusing as the much put upon Dr. James Sheppard and his very nosy sister, Caroline. I read somewhere that the Caroline Sheppard character may have been a forerunner of the Jane Marple character. Malcolm Terris gave a very emotional performance as the story's victim, Roger Ackroyd. Both Daisy Beaumont and Flora Montgomery were also effectively emotional as Ursula Bourne and Flora Ackroyd (the victim's niece) - the two women in the life of Ralph Paton, Ackroyd's stepson and major suspect. Speaking of the later, Jamie Bamber gave a solid performance as Ralph. But honestly, he did not exactly rock my boat. However, I was impressed by Roger Frost's portrayal of Ackroyd's butler, Parker. I thought he did a very good job in portraying the different aspects of the competent, yet rather emotional manservant.

Looking back, I really wish that Clive Exton had maintained Christie's narrative style for this television adaptation of her 1926 novel. I believe it could have been possible. By changing the narrative style and adding the Chief Inspector Japp character to the story, Exton transformed "THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD" from a unique story to a typical Christie murder mystery. Pity.

"THERE WILL BE BLOOD" (2007) Photo Gallery

Below is a gallery of photos from the 2007 Paul Thomas Anderson film, "THERE WILL BE BLOOD", starring Daniel Day-Lewis (who won both a Golden Globe and an Academy Award for his performance), Paul Dano, Dillon Freasier, Ciarán Hinds and Kevin J. O'Connor:



"THERE WILL BE BLOOD" (2007) Photo Gallery