"MALEFICENT" (2014) Review

 

"MALEFICENT" (2014) Review

I am probably the last person on this earth who would associate Angelina Jolie with a Disney film, let alone one made for children. Then again, I have never seen Jolie in another movie like her recent film, "MALEFICENT".

Despite some adult themes found in this new film, I honestly believe that "MALEFICENT" is basically a movie for children. It is not just based upon Charles Perrault's 1697 fairy tale, "La Belle au Bois Dormant", but also the Disney Studios' 1959 animated adaptation, "SLEEPING BEAUTY". Only this film is told with a twist. Some would say with a feminist twist. Linda Woolverton's screenplay features the story's main villainess, the evil and vindictive fairy, Maleficent, as the movie's main protagonist. The film begins with Maleficent as a young and powerful fairy who serves as the main protector of a fairy realm called Moors that borders a human kingdom ruled by ruthless monarch named King Henry, who covets it. Maleficent befriends a young boy named Stefan, who works as a kitchen servant for the king.

The years pass as Maleficent and Stefan's friendship grows to something close to a romance. But King Henry's latest attempt to invade Moors leads him to offer his daughter's hand in marriage and his kingdom to the man able to kill Maleficent. Ambitious and longing to rise above his station, Stefan sets out to collect the bounty on his old friend. Unable to kill her because of their friendship, Stefan drugs Maleficent and burns her wings off with iron (a substance lethal to fairies) and presents the latter to King Henry as proof of her death. Stefan eventually marries King Henry's daughter, Princess Leila, and eventually assumes the throne following his father-in-law's death. When Maleficent learns about the birth of Stefan and Leila's infant daughter, Aurora, she appears uninvited at the christening and places a curse on the infant princess. On her sixteenth birthday, Aurora will prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel and fall into a death-like sleep. After Stefan is forced by Maleficent to beg for his daughter, she alters the curse with the addition that it can be broken by true love's kiss. Stefan arranges for Aurora to be raised by three pixie fairies - Knotgrass, Flittle and Thistlewit. And despite her initial dislike of Aurora, Maleficent begins to secretly care about the girl, when the neglectful pixie fairies fail to take properly care of her.

There is a good number of elements for "MALEFICENT" that I found very admirable. I believe it is one of the more visually stunning films I have seen in recent years. A great deal of credit has to go to Dylan Cole and Gary Freeman's production designs. The pair did an excellent job in recapturing medieval life . . . at least in a fantasy world. Dean Semler's photography of parts of rural England, which served as King Stefan's realm, added to the movie's visual style. But the work from the special effects team, especially for creation of the fairy realm and other sequences that featured magic, truly enhanced the movie's visual style. I also have to add a word about Anna B. Sheppard's costume designs for the film. I could wax lyrical on how beautiful they looked. But there are times when I believe that images can speak louder than words:







I will not claim that Sheppard's costumes are an accurate reflection of medieval fashion. But . . . hey! I cannot deny that I found them beautiful.

As for the plot for "MALEFICENT", I cannot deny that it proved to be something of a conundrum for me. Woolverton's screenplay and Robert Stromberg's direction clearly seemed to hint that it is basically a movie for children. The dialogue, the movie's style of humor and especially its use of the three fairy sisters as the movie's comic relief practically screams "Kiddie Film" to me. And yet . . . Woolverton's screenplay also featured elements that seemed to indicate a movie with strong adult themes. The most obvious element proved to be the theft of Maleficent's wings. Unless I am mistaken, the entire scene struck me as a metaphor for rape. Think about it. Stefan drugs Maleficent (a stand-in for any rape drug) to knock her unconscious. Using iron - an indication of violence - he physically violates her by burning off her wings. The relationship that develops between Maleficent and Aurora not only proved to be unexpected, but is given a feminist twist. Aside from Maleficent's relationship with her aide Diaval, a raven whom she had saved by transforming him into a human; the male-female relationships in this movie proved to be either ineffective or disastrous. Even the use of "True Love's Kiss" had a twist I had failed to foresee . . . until several minutes before it actually occurred.

There have been other productions - both television and film - that mixed elements of children's stories and adult themes. ABC Television's "ONCE UPON A TIME" seemed to use a great deal of adult themes in its twist on fairy tales. Yet, the series continues to maintain some semblance of childlike morality in its portrayal of magic. J.K. Rowling's "HARRY POTTER" literary (and film adaptations) series becomes increasingly ambiguous as the saga progresses. And aside from the first film, George Lucas' "STAR WARS" film saga strikes me as a case study of moral ambiguity with touches of humor and characterizations for children. But these science-fiction/fantasy sagas seem capable of balancing humor and storytelling for children with adult themes.

I cannot say the same about "MALEFICENT". The movie's childish humor - courtesy of the three fairy sisters - struck me as heavy-handed and not at all funny. I also believe the movie's 97-minute running time made it difficult for Woolverton's script to maintain that balance between children and adult themes. More importantly, the movie's running time forced Stromberg and Woolverton to rush the story forward at a unnecessarily fast pace, especially during the movie's last half hour. Other aspects of the plot - Maleficent's background, her relationships with both Stefan and Diaval, and especially her developing relationship with Aurora. But there are two aspects that struck me as rushed - namely Aurora's relationship with the fairy sisters (which barely seemed to exist) and the last half hour in which the sleeping curse is played out. I cannot help but wonder if Disney's penchant for cinematic penny-pinching forced Stromberg and Woolverton to rush the movie's climatic act.

I certainly had no problems with the movie's performances. Angelina Jolie was outstanding as the movie's protagonist, the fairy Maleficent. Being the top-notch actress that she is, Jolie effortlessly captured every nuance of Maleficent's character - both the good and the bad. I have been a great admirer of Sharlto Copley in the past - with the exception of his villainous turn in the 2013 sci-fi movie, "ELYSIUM". Thankfully, his complex portrayal of this movie's villain, King Stefan, reminded me of his skill at portraying complex roles. At first, Elle Fanning seemed to be stuck with a role that struck me very sweet, kind . . . and boring. Fortunately for her, the Princess Aurora character became more interesting in the movie's second half and Fanning got the chance to show off her acting chops - especially in the scene in which Aurora confronts Maleficent about the curse.

The movie also featured solid performances from Sam Riley as Maleficent's confidant Diaval, Kenneth Cranham as King Henry and Hannah New as Queen Leila. I have been longtime fans of Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville and Juno Temple. But I have to be honest - I was not that impressed by their portrayals of the three fairy sisters. It was quite obvious to me that Staunton, Manville and Temple did their best to make the three sisters - Knotgrass, Flittle and Thistlewit - interesting. Nor can I accuse them of bad acting. They were obviously giving it their all. There are times when external forces have a way of affecting an actor or actress' performance, whether due to bad direction or bad writing. In the case of the three actresses who portrayed Aurora's fairy guardians, I suspect their performances were sabotaged by Linda Woolverton's writing. The screenwriter's sense of humor struck me as subtle as a stampeding buffalo. I also believe that her screenplay may have hampered Brenton Thwaites' performance as Prince Philip. How can I put it? Thwaites gave a bland and boring performance, because he was forced to portrayed a bland and boring character. The 1959 animated version of the prince had more zing than this latest version. And I blame Woolverton's screenplay, not the actor.

Do not get me wrong. I rather liked "MALEFICENT". I found it to be a visually stunning film with some strong moral ambiguity in its plot and in some of the major characters, and a solid cast led by outstanding performances from Angelina Jolie and Sharlto Copley. I also enjoyed the feminist twist on the "Sleeping Beauty" tale. But due to some flawed characterizations and a failure to balance both the children and adult theme in its plot, I can honestly say that I did not love "MALEFICENT".

"MALEFICENT" (2014) Photo Gallery

Below are images of "MALEFICENT", the new Disney adaptation of Charles Perrault's 1697 tale, "Sleeping Beauty". Directed by Robert Stromberg, the movie stars Angelina Jolie:

"MALEFICENT" (2014) Photo Gallery

"The Problems of a Savior Complex"

"THE PROBLEMS OF A SAVIOR COMPLEX"

The Season Three finale of ABC's "ONCE UPON A TIME" ended on a curious note. The finale consisted of two episodes - (3.21) "Snow Drift" and (3.22) "There's No Place Like Home" - in which two of the series' protagonists, Emma Swan and Killian Jones aka Captain Hook, found themselves transported back in time and to the Enchanted Forest due to circumstances beyond their control.

Let me make this brief. The main villain of Season Three's second half turned out to be Regina Mills' older half-sister Zelena, who was also known as the Wicked Witch of the West from "The Wizard of Oz". Due to Zelena's jealousy of her younger half-sister's privileged life, which included being raised by their mother Cora Mills aka the Queen of Hearts, she wanted to go back in time and erase Regina from existence. Although Zelena managed to set up a portal to convey her back in time, Regina managed to defeat her. Unfortunately . . . an angry Rumpelstiltskin ended up murdering an incarcerated Zelena for the death of his son, Neal Cassidy aka Baefire. Zelena's spirit ended up re-opening the time travel portal. And both Emma and Hook got sucked into the portal and into the past.

During the pair's adventures in the Enchanted Forest of the past, Emma nearly ruined the first meeting between her parents - Snow White and David, Prince Charming. She and Hook, with Rumpelstiltskin's help, set out to repair the timeline and ensure that her parents will not only meet, but fall in love. Their efforts to do so led to Emma's capture during the wedding party of Charming and Princess Abigail by Regina, also known as the Evil Queen. Inside the Queen's jail cell, Emma met a woman who had been incarcerated for helping Snow White flee Regina's wrath. With her and the woman set to be executed the following morning, Emma managed to break out of the cell. Hook, who had earlier warned Emma about changing the timeline, reacted with slight dismay when he discovered that she helped the woman escape. And yet . . . when Emma wanted to bring the woman with her and Hook to Storybrooke, Hook agreed to help her, arguing that the woman's family thought she was dead and they need to continue to believe it. The woman refused to go with Emma and Hook to Storybrooke, so the former knocked her unconscious and with Hook's help, brought her with them. As it turned out, the woman proved to be Maid Marian, Robin Hood's wife. And Marian's presence in Storybrooke brought an end to Robin's newly found romance with Regina Mills.

Judging from Regina's angry reaction to Emma and Hook's actions, many fans reacted in different ways to this new twist in the story arc between the two women. Many fans continue to assume that Regina will fall back on her old evil ways and seek revenge against Emma for ruining her romance with Robin. Some believe she will be tempted, but continue her redemption arc and eventually forgive Emma. What is interesting about all of this is that most of the fans seemed to be interested in how Regina will react to the loss of Robin in the upcoming fourth season. Only a few fans have even bothered to criticize Emma and Hook for their actions. Yet, despite these criticisms, other fans came to Emma's defense by stating that she was right to save Marian from being executed by Regina. I am tempted to discuss this situation from Regina and Robin's point of view. But right now, I am more interested in what led Emma to change the timeline in the first place.

I can image the response to the last sentence in the previous paragraph. What led Emma to change the timeline? To save Marion's life, that's why! Emma Swan is supposed to be "the Savior". As fan as the series and many of the fans are concerned, this is what she is supposed to do. I wish I could agree with that sentiment. I really do. But considering her actions in "There's No Place Like Home", I wish it were not so. Emma became labeled as "the Savior" back in Season One, when it was revealed that she was the person destined to break the curse that found many of the Enchanted Forest's inhabitants in "the Land Without Magic" - namely Storybrooke, Maine - thanks to Rumpelstiltskin's creation of it and Regina's willingness to cast it. After spending nearly a season refusing to believe in the curse, let alone the idea that the town's inhabitants came from a fairy tale world, Emma finally broke the curse with a "true love" kiss to her son Henry, who was trapped in a sleeping curse. And the only reason Emma found herself in this role as everyone's "savior" was because Rumpelstiltskin manipulated events so they would lead to this moment. And why? Because he wanted to find his son Baefire, whom he discovered had ended up in our world. Now, if the only reason Emma had been set up as "the savior" who break that first curse . . . why did everyone else continued to regard her as "the savior" after she broke it? Why did she, for that matter?

One would think I am accusing Emma Swan of developing a bad ego trip. And you know what? They would be right. I am well aware of the fact that Emma reacted with a great reluctance and wariness to the idea of her being "the savior". I am also aware of the fact that she was willing to flee Storybrooke (with Henry) in the Season One episodes, (1.20) "The Stranger" and (1.21) "An Apple Red as Blood" because she could not face the responsibility of being responsible for the lives of Storybrooke's citizens. But once she broke the curse in (1.22) "A Land Without Magic", Emma ended up embracing her "savior" role with a vengeance . . . despite her continued wariness. This was especially apparent in three episodes from Season Two and Three. After she, Snow White, Mulan and Aurora ended up captured by Cora and Hook in Season Two's (2.09) "The Queen of Hearts" in the present day Enchanted Forest, the following exchange occurred between the four women:

(Emma is futilely banging the door of the cell with her sword, while the rest of them watch.)

Snow White: We aren’t going to break it down, Emma. It was enchanted to hold Rumpelstiltskin. We don’t have a chance.

Aurora: This is my fault.

Mulan: No, it’s mine. Cora stole your heart because I failed to protect you.

Emma: That’s very sweet, but I believe it’s my fault. I’m the saviour, and I’m not doing much saving, am I?

When I first saw this episode during the fall of 2012, I thought nothing of Emma's words. But when I recently viewed the episode from my copy of the series' Season Two DVD box set, her comment stunned me. I could not believe what I had just heard. For the second time, Emma expressed her deep-seated view to her mother Snow White that she would always be destined to be "the savior" in the Season Three episode, (3.11) "Going Home". In this episode, Rumpelstiltskin had defeated his father Malcolm aka Peter Pan and Regina had to permanently destroy the curse by ripping the scroll that contain the words to it. Because Henry was born in "the Land Without Magic" and Emma managed to avoid the first curse, they were able to avoid being sent back to the Enchanted Forest. Before Regina destroy the scroll, both Regina and Snow White hinted that since Emma was "the savior", she was supposed to remain behind and take Henry away. Emma responded to Snow White with the following words:

"I'm the savior, right? I'm supposed to bring back all the happy endings."

Dear God. Emma's belief in her role as "the savior" truly reached egotistical heights in her conversation with Hook in "Snow Drift" in which both discussed Emma's plans to return to New York with Henry:

Hook: Don't listen to me, listen to your son. (He takes the storybook from his satchel and hands it to Emma.) He thought this might remind you of what you're leaving behind--your family.

Emma: Henry is my family and I am taking him where he is safe.

Hook: No, Swan. The safety-first nonsense is just that. You defeated the bloody Wicked Witch. You defeated Pan. You broke the curse. And you keep running. What are you looking for?

What I found amazing about Hook's words is that he had credited the defeats of Peter Pan and Zelena to Emma. Apparently, he had forgotten that Regina was the one who saved Henry's heart from Pan back in Neverland. Hook had forgotten that Rumpelstiltskin was the one who ultimately defeated Pan . . . and that Regina was the one who defeated Zelena. The only thing Hook got right was the fact that Emma had broken the curse. Some fans claim that Hook was merely trying to bolster Emma's self esteem. Emma's self esteem was not on Hook's mind. Emma's reluctance to live in Storybrooke with her parents WAS the topic between them. Hook merely slipped in Pan and Zelena's defeats into the conversation. And what I found even more amazing . . . and scary is that Emma never bothered to correct him. By this time, Emma had incorporated the idea of her being "the savior" so much that she ended up wallowing in illusions over who had really defeated the Big Bads of Season Three.

As for the situation with Maid Marian . . . I can only shake my head in disbelief. I realize that many fans believe that Emma should have chosen saving a woman's life over maintaining the timeline. I do not. Throughout most of "Snow Drift", Hook had warned Emma about changing the timeline . . . for any reason. This reminds me of an episode from the 1998-2006 supernatural series, "CHARMED". In the latter's Season One episode called (1.17) "That '70s Episode", the Halliwell sisters traveled back in time to 1975 in order to prevent their late mother from being coerced into making a pact with a warlock - a pact that might have deadly circumstances for them. The youngest sister (at the time) Phoebe Halliwell gave into temptation and left a warning to her mother on how the latter would die nearly three years later. Realizing that she would end up changing the timeline, Phoebe tore up the letter before she and her sisters returned to 1999. As much as Phoebe wanted to save her mother, she realized that maintaining the timeline was the right thing to do . . . even if it meant her mother's early death.

Despite the constant warnings from Hook about changing the timeline, Emma ignored him and saved Maid Marian from the cell. While I might admire her willingness to save someone, I wish she had realized that one cannot save everyone all of the time. And sometimes, it is not a good idea. But in her arrogance and misplaced belief that she had to save everyone, Emma decided to change the timeline. To make matters worse, she forced Marian to accompany her and Hook back to Storybrooke, despite the fact that Marian wanted to remain in the Enchanted Forest and find her family. And Hook's argument that Robin and the others probably thought she was dead did not sit well with me. Emma had already screwed up the timeline by saving Marian. I did not see how dragging the latter back to Storybrooke was going to help the matter. As it turned out, it did not.

The Season Four premiere, (4.01) "A Tale of Two Sisters" featured Emma wracked with guilt for ruining Regina's newly formed romance with Robin. It was nice to see that Emma felt some guilt over wrecking havoc on the private lives of Regina, Robin and Marian. But her response to Regina made me realize that she has yet to understand the real problem behind her actions in "There's No Place Like Home":

"Henry brought me to Storybrooke to bring back the happy endings. My job is not done until I do that for everyone, including you."

Despite her feelings of guilt, Emma still believes that her role as "the Savior" will give Regina her happy ending and solve everyone's problems. She never considered the possibility that her belief that she always has to be "the Savior" had led her to upset the timeline and cause a great deal of personal trouble for Regina, Robin and Marian. She has not changed one bit. After what I saw in both "There's No Place Like Home" and "A Tale of Two Sisters", I have come to the conclusion that Emma has absorbed the idea of being "the savior" to such a degree that she has become illusional. Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis, have also become illusional in this belief that Emma is always supposed to be "the savior". Unless they have plans for Emma to develop some kind of mental complex over her role as "the savior" in the later seasons, I suspect that Horowitz and Kitsis will never allow Emma to really face the consequences of her action in There's No Place Like Home", aside from a few angry rants from Regina and encounters with the latest character in the series, Queen Elsa of "FROZEN". And I suspect that Regina's anger will not last very long. I have complained in an earlier article that when it comes to Emma and her family, Horowitz and Kitsis have a bad habit of not allowing them to consider or face the consequences of their actions . . . with the exception of Snow White, who had committed murder. And the consequences she faced proved to be mild and rather brief.

I must admit that I am getting weary of Emma constantly being labeled as "the savior". This is a label that should have dropped after she had broken the original curse in "A Land Without Magic". The only reason she was fixed with "the savior" role in the first place was because Rumpelstiltskin had arranged for her to be the one to break that curse. The longer this series continues to label Emma as "the savior", the more I will become convinced that she has developed serious complex issues over this role.

Maqluba

Below is a short article about a casserole dish known as Maqluba: 


MAQLUBA

Maquluba is a traditional casserole dish of the Arab Levant. It is traditional in many countries throughout the Middle East. The ingredients for the dish can vary from one recipe to another. However, it basically consists of meat, eggplant, and various vegetables; which are all cooked under a layer of rice. The ingredients are placed in a pot, which is flipped upside-down, when served. This is why the dish is called Maqluba, which means "upside down". Maqluba is traditionally accompanied by yogurt and/or cucumber salad.

I first learned about Maqluba, while watching the BBC series, "THE SUPERSIZERS EAT . . . MEDIEVAL". According to the episode, the dish certainly existed around the 12th and 13th centuries, when European soldiers first stumbled across it, while they fought in the Middle East, during The Crusades. 

Below is a recipe for Maqluba that mainly features chicken and rice from the Mina website:

Maqluba

Ingredients

1 ½ cups Rice, divided
¼ cup Olive oil, divided
1 Large eggplant
1 Large zucchini
Salt and pepper 
1 Onion, chopped
2 Cloves garlic, minced
1 lb Lean Ground Chicken
½ tsp Cinnamon
Pinch Nutmeg
1 tsp Allspice 
1 tsp Garam masala
1 Large tomato, sliced 
1 (19 oz) Can chickpeas, drained
2 ½ cups Chicken broth


Directions

SOAK rice in water for 30 minutes or until ready to use.

CUT eggplant and zucchini lengthwise into ¼ inch thick strips. Heat 1 tbsp olive oil in a large skillet over medium-high heat. Working in batches, sauté until tender, about 1-2 minutes per side and set aside.

HEAT 1 tbsp olive oil in the same pan and add onion and garlic. Sauté for 2-4 minutes or until tender. Add chicken and spices and cook for 8-10 minutes, breaking up the meat with the back of a wooden spoon until golden brown.

DRAIN rice and set aside.

GREASE a 16 cup heavy bottomed pot with olive oil. Layer zucchini and eggplant alternately in the bottom of the pot and up the sides. Top eggplant and zucchini in bottom of pot with sliced tomatoes. Sprinkle ½ cup (125 mL) rice over the tomatoes followed by chicken mixture, chickpeas and any remaining eggplant or zucchini. Press to compact. Sprinkle in remaining rice and press down again. Pour in chicken stock and cover.

BRING the mixture to a boil, reduce heat and simmer on low for 45-50 minutes. If mixture gets too dry before the rice is finished cooking add additional chicken broth or water and simmer until absorbed and rice is cooked.

REMOVE from the heat and let rest, covered for 15 minutes.

REMOVE lid from the pot and place a large platter upside down over the pot. Carefully invert the mixture onto the platter and serve.

Tips: The mixture may not hold its shape completely but that’s okay, simply patch it up before serving. It’s delicious either way.

Serving Suggestion: Serve with plain yogurt on the side. Garnish with pine nuts and chopped parsley.

Snow White's Discovery About Daniel's Fate

SNOW WHITE DISCOVERY ABOUT DANIEL'S FATE

Recently, I watched Season One episode of ABC-TV's "ONCE UPON A TIME" called (1.07) "The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter"and found myself confused over a matter regarding Snow White and her knowledge of Daniel's fate. 

In one of the flashbacks for "The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter", the Huntsman was commissioned by Regina aka the Evil Queen to take the recently orphaned Snow White into the woods, kill her and cut out her heart. Sensing the Huntsman's odd behavior, Snow tried to make a run for it. She realized that that she would not get very far, Snow stopped running and sat down to write a letter to her stepmother. The Huntsman failed to kill Snow White and later, presented a stag's heart to Regina, claiming that it came from Snow. He also presented Snow's letter to Regina. 

The letter expressed Snow White's knowledge of Regina's desire for revenge and that her unintentional act of indiscretion led to the death of Regina's love, namely her family’s stable boy, whose name was Daniel:

Dearest Stepmother,

By the time you read this, I will be dead. I understand that you will never have love in your life because of me, so it's only fitting that I'll be denied that same joy as well. For the sake of the kingdom, I hope my death satisfies your need for revenge allowing you to rule my father's subjects as they deserve with compassion and a gentle hand. I know what you think you're doing is vengeance, I prefer to think of it as sacrifice for the good of all with that in mind I welcome the end. I want you to take my last message to heart. I'm sorry and I forgive you.

I never paid attention to or even remembered this letter when I first saw "The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter". However, one of the flashbacks for (2.02) "We Are Both" featured a scene in which a young Regina and an even younger Snow White are discussing the former's upcoming marriage to the latter's father, King Leopold. Snow White still seemed oblivious to the circumstances behind Daniel's death.

In the years between Regina's marriage to King Leopold and the latter's death, Snow White learned the truth behind Daniel's death and Regina's desire for revenge. My question is . . . how? How and when did Snow White learn the truth behind Daniel's death? And if she knew the truth by the time the Huntsman had been recruited to kill her, why did she seemed so open to Regina's fake grief and words of condolences at the funeral, following Leopold's death? Was Snow White faking it, as well? Or had the writers simply created another plot hole?

Macaroni and Cheese

Below is an article I had written about a famous comfort food dish known as Macaroni and Cheese: 


MACARONI AND CHEESE

Macaroni and Cheese is a famous dish known throughout Europe and other Western countries, especially the United States. My own memories of the dish date back to my childhood when my parents and grandmother used to serve it to me and my siblings . . . especially from the pre-packaged box form created by the company, Kraft. But I have eaten traditional homemade Macaroni and Cheese every now and then.

Although known today as an American comfort dish, Macaroni and Cheese was a dish made from Parmesan cheese and past that originated in Italy. Pasta and cheese casseroles have been recorded in cookbooks as early as the 14th century's "Liber de Coquina", one of the oldest medieval cookbooks. The dish also made its first appearance in England during the same century, in the famous English medieval cookbook titled "Forme of Cury". 

The first modern recipe for Macaroni and Cheese appeared in Elizabeth Raffald's 1769 book "The Experienced English Housekeeper". Her recipe called for a Béchamel sauce with Cheddar cheese, which is mixed with macaroni pasta, sprinkled with Parmesan cheese and baked. The dish also appeared in the famous Victorian cookbook, "Mrs. Beeton's Book of Household Management" and included two recipes for the dish. 

Many would be surprised to learn that the future third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson may have been responsible for the introduction of Macaroni and Cheese to Americans. He first sampled the dish in both in Paris and in northern Italy, and later incorporated the dish at his Virginia home, Monticello. As the country's third president, Jefferson served Macaroni and Cheese at a State dinner in 1802. Mary Randolph, sister to Jefferon's son-in-law Thomas Mann Randolph Jr., included a recipe for the dish in her 1824 cookbook, "The Virginia Housewife".

Below is a recipe for "Macaroni and Cheese" from the MyRecipe website:


Macaroni and Cheese

Ingredients

2 cups milk 
2 tablespoons butter 
2 tablespoons all-purpose flour 
1/2 teaspoon salt 
1/4 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper 
1 (10-oz.) block extra sharp Cheddar cheese, shredded 
1/4 teaspoon ground red pepper (optional)
1/2 (16-oz.) package elbow macaroni, cooked


Preparation

1. Whisk flour into butter

Preheat oven to 400°. Microwave milk at HIGH for 1 1/2 minutes. Melt butter in a large skillet or Dutch oven over medium-low heat; whisk in flour until smooth. Cook, whisking constantly, 1 minute.

2. Whisk in warm milk

Gradually whisk in warm milk, and cook, whisking constantly, 5 minutes or until thickened.

3. Whisk in cheese

Whisk in salt, black pepper, 1 cup shredded cheese, and, if desired, red pepper until smooth; stir in pasta. Spoon pasta mixture into a lightly greased 2-qt. baking dish; top with remaining cheese. Bake at 400° for 20 minutes or until golden and bubbly.

"CASHELMARA" (1974) Book Review

"CASHELMARA" (1974) Book Review

My experiences with novels by Susan Howatch are rather limited. If I must be honest, I have only finished three of her novels. I tried reading two other novels - "THE RICH ARE DIFFERENT" (1977) and the first novel in The Starbridge Series, "GLITTERING IMAGES" (1987). However, I could not maintain any interest in the last two novels. Neither focused upon the history of an upper-class British family, which happened to be my main interest when I was in my late teens and early twenties. 

One of the three novels I did finish was 1974's "CASHELMARA", a saga that focused upon an Anglo-Irish family called the De Salis. The story began in 1859 when Edward Baron de Salis journeyed to antebellum New York City to visit his late wife's cousins, the Marriotts; and ends some 32 years later in 1891 with his grandson Edward, resorting to extraordinary means to regain control of the family's Irish estate called Cashelmara. During this 32 year journey, readers become acquainted with six main characters and a fascinating cast of supporting characters that add to Howatch's tale.

Before reading "CASHELMARA", one has to understand that it is one of three novels that are based upon one of the British Royal Family's royal houses - that of the Plantagenets. The 1971 novel, "PENMARRIC" focused on characters based upon the Plantagenet line that stretched from King Henry II to one of his younger sons, King John. However, Howatch skimped a generation and decided to continue her focus on the Plantagenet line with John's grandson, King Edward I and finished the novel with a character based upon the latter's grandson, King Edward III. "CASHELMARA" is divided into six segments. Those segments are narrated by the following characters:

*Edward, Baron de Salis - a middle-aged English aristocrat and owner of both Woodhammer Hall (in England) and Cashelmara (based upon King Edward I)
*Marguerite Marriott, Baroness de Salis - a 17-18 year-old adolescent from a wealthy New York family who becomes Edward's second wife (based upon Margaret of France, later Edward I's second consort)
*Patrick, Baron de Salis - Edward's only surviving son, who loses Woodhammer Hall ten years after his father's death via gambling debts (based upon King Edward II)
*Sarah Marriott, Baroness de Salis - Marguerite's oldest niece and Patrick's wife (based upon Isabella of France, later Edward II's consort)
*Maxwell Drummond - an Irish tenant farmer on the Cashelmara estate, who becomes Sarah's lover and Patrick's enemy (based upon Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, Isabella's lover)
*Edward "Ned", Baron de Salis - Patrick and Sarah's oldest son (based upon King Edward III)

Another aspect about "CASHELMARA" that Howatch fans might find fascinating is that "THE WHEEL OF FORTUNE" could be considered a direct sequel to the former novel. Remember . . . "CASHELMARA" ended with Ned as the novel's narrator. And Ned is supposed to be based upon Edward III. "THE WHEEL OF FORTUNE" began with Robert Goodwin, who is based upon Edward the Black Prince, Edward III's oldest son. Since Robert's father was still alive in the first half of the 1984 novel, this means that Howatch based two characters on Edward III - Ned de Salis and "Bobby" Goodwin. Really, one might as well view "THE WHEEL OF FORTUNE" as more of a direct sequel to "CASHELMARA" than "PENMARRIC". In fact, Bobby Goodwin's background story in the 1984 novel is practically a re-enactment of what happened between Ned and his parents, Patrick and Sarah in "CASHELMARA", but with a few changes.

How do I feel about "CASHELMARA"? I thought Howatch had created a very fascinating tale. On one level, she took a family saga and placed it within a setting that gave readers a look at how British Imperial policy worked in Ireland. And we saw this policy in motion via the viewpoint of an aristocratic family - except for the Maxwell Drummond character. And although there are many novels set within the British Empire - even in Ireland - "CASHELMARA" is probably the only one that I can recall that had been written by Howatch. More importantly, Howatch's description of the Cashelmara estate left a stark image in my mind that I found rather interesting. It was interesting that half of the major characters regarded the Irish estate with a negative view. The other three major characters seemed to have different views of Cashelmara. Edward de Salis seemed to have a mixed view of the estate. Cashelmara reminded him of the period he had enjoyed as a child. Yet at the same time, it stood as a reminder of his failure to offer genuine help to his tenants during the Great Famine of the 1840s. Ironically, the de Salis family and their tenants would find themselves facing another famine over thirty years later. Maxwell Drummond seemed to regard Cashelmara as a symbol of his ambition to become a landowner and a gentleman. And he would try to achieve these goals through Sarah with disastrous results. As far as Ned de Salis was concerned, Cashelmara was his home, and a family legacy that he would go through great lengths to regain. After all, his father Patrick had lost the family's English estate, Woodhammer Hall, sometime before his birth.

Most of the novel proved to be interesting in its own right. The first two segments - narrated by Edward de Salis and his second wife, Marguerite - also proved to be interesting. Howatch did an excellent job in painting a portrait of both antebellum New York City and mid-Victorian England at the end of the 1850s and into the 1860s. Readers got a peek into Edward's fascination with his future bride, along with his the disappointment he felt regarding his children. But I especially enjoyed Marguerite's narration. I found it interesting to read how this 18 year-old girl struggled to maintain a healthy and happy marriage with a man over thirty years her senior. Marguerite's narration also revealed the struggles that she had to endure as an American in a foreign country. Between others - including her husband - making assumptions about her American nationality, dealing with the British high society's reactions to the American Civil War, and struggling to act as a mediator between Edward and her stepchildren; the 1860s proved to be somewhat difficult for Marguerite. However, being a strong-willed young woman in her own right, she survived.

Also, I found "CASHELMARA" to be the most disturbing tale of the three family sagas written by the author. What made this novel so disturbing? It has to be the marriage between Patrick and Sarah de Salis. Howatch based their marriage on the lives of Edward II and his wife, Isabella. But from what I have read, the private lives of the Plantagenet monarch and his consort were not as disturbing as the marriage between Patrick and Sarah. The novel's third segment, told from Patrick's point-of-view, revealed their courtship and the first four years of their marriage. It also revealed how Sarah's spending and especially Patrick's gambling habits managed to dwindle away his fortune. Their financial problems had only added to the existing strain caused by Patrick's continuing friendship with his childhood friend, Derry Stranahan. But the segment narrated by Sarah also proved to be the novel's nadir in terms of what occurred and how low her marriage to Patrick had sunk. And for Sarah and Patrick, their marriage had sunk to alcoholism and loss of property for him; imprisonment and rape for her. Despite the ugliness that permeated Sarah's segment, the latter also proved to be one of the two most interesting in the novel. 

Like "THE WHEEL OF FORTUNE", the novel's last segment proved to be the most difficult for me. Narrated by Sarah and Patrick's oldest child, Ned, I had some difficulty relating to the character. Perhaps Ned was simply too old. After all, he aged from thirteen to seventeen or eighteen years old during this last chapter. But I recall that one of the segments of "THE WHEEL OF FORTUNE" had been narrated by a character named Christopher "Kester" Goodwin, who aged from nine to nineteen years old. I had no problems with the Kester character from "THE WHEEL OF FORTUNE", but I did with the Ned de Salis character. Why? Perhaps I did not find him that fascinating. Or perhaps I found his penchant to view his father as a hero, Maxwell Drummond as a villain and his mother as a stooge for Drummond a little too simple for me to stomach. I find it difficult to relate to characters who harbor one-dimensional views about life and other people. And because Howatch ensured that Ned never learned what his mother had endured at the hands of Patrick and the latter's lover/estate manager, Hugh McGowan, I found my ability to relate to him even more difficult.

I have read some reviews of "CASHELMARA' and discovered that a good number of readers managed to enjoy this family saga very much. Only a handful seemed to regard the characters as unsympathetic and not worthy of their interest. I believe that a first-rate author could create a sympathetic character with unpleasant traits, if he or she had a mind to do so. Susan Howatch certainly managed to create some very interesting characters - aside from one - for "CASHELMARA". She also created a first-rate family saga that still remains fresh after forty-one years.