Favorite Episodes of "STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE" Season Three (1994-1995)

 

Below is a list of my favorite episodes from Season Three of "STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE". Created by Rick Berman and Michael Piller; the series starred Avery Brooks as Commander Benjamin Siesko:

FAVORITE EPISODES OF "STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE" SEASON THREE (1994-1995)

1. (3.26) "The Adversary" - The Federation's Ambassador Krajensky informs newly promoted Captain Benjamin Sisko that there has been a coup on Tzenketh. During the journey to Tzenketh, Sisko and the crew discover that a Changeling from the Dominion may be hiding aboard and sabotaging Deep Space Nine's only ship, the U.S.S. Defiant. Lawrence Pressman guest starred.

2. (3.09) "The Defiant" - Commander William Riker of the U.S.S. Enterprise shows up unannounced and the station's second-in-command, Major Kira Nerys shows him the Defiant, where he reveals his true motives for coming to Deep Space Nine. Jonathan Frakes and Tricia O'Neil guest starred.

3. (3.21) "The Die is Cast" - Former Cardassian spy-turned-tailor Elim Garak reluctantly tortures Odo for information to prove his loyalty to his former mentor, Enabran Tain, as a joint Tal Shiar/Obsidian Order attack on the Founders in the Omarian Nebula is underway, without Starfleet's involvement. Paul Dooley and Leland Orser guest starred.

4. (3.11-3.12) "Past Tense" - A transporter accident sends Sisko, Dr. Julian Bashir, and Lieutenant Jadzia Dax back to Earth's dark past in the 21st century, a time just before the Bell riots, a violent civil disturbance in opposition to Sanctuaries which are controlled ghettos for the dispossessed. Bill Smitrovitch, Jim Metzler and Clint Howard guest starred.

5. (3.19) "Through the Looking Glass" - Sisko is kidnapped and forced to impersonate his deceased mirror universe counterpart in order to convince Jennifer Sisko to defect to the Terran Rebellion. Felecia M. Bell and Tim Russ guest starred.

Honorable Mention: (3.24) "Shakaar" - Vedek Kai Winn, who has become a political leader on Bajor, needs Kira to convince the former resistance leader Shakaar, now a farmer, to return soil reclamators needed elsewhere in Rakantha, which used to be Bajor's most productive agricultural region. Duncan Regehr and William Lucking guest starred.

"BOARDWALK EMPIRE" Season Two (2011) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from Season Two of the HBO series called "BOARDWALK EMPIRE".  Created by Terence Winter, the series starred Steve Buscemi:

"BOARDWALK EMPIRE" SEASON TWO (2011) Photo Gallery

"THE DARK KNIGHT" (2008) Review

 

"THE DARK KNIGHT" (2008) Review

In 2005, director/writer Christopher Nolan rebooted the Batman franchise with the highly successful movie, ”BATMAN BEGINS” that starred Christian Bale as Batman aka the Caped Crusader. Both men reunited for two other movies. Their second reunion centered around Batman’s conflict with his greatest nemesis, the Joker, in the 2008 movie called ”THE DARK KNIGHT”.

There have been a great deal of attention surrounding this movie. Many have not only praised it, claiming that it was the best film in Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy. But most of the word-of-mouth had centered around Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker, especially after his tragic death some six months before the film's theatrical release. When ”THE DARK KNIGHT” hit the movie theaters, many critics and fans expressed the belief that their positive word-of-mouth had been justified. Not only had many judged Ledger’s performance as the best in his career, others still claim that the movie is probably the best comic book hero movie ever made. I do not know if the Joker featured Heath Ledger’s best performance ever. As for the claim about ”THE DARK KNIGHT” being the best comic book hero movie . . . well, I disagree.

I am not saying that ”THE DARK KNIGHT” was a terrible or mediocre film. Frankly, I believe that it was one of the best movies I have seen during the summer of 2008. Most of the movie featured an excellent story scripted by Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, and David S. Goyer. The movie began with Gotham’s organized criminal element feeling itself threatened by the law ever since the end of crime boss Carmine Falcone in ”BATMAN BEGINS”, thanks to Batman. A former inmate of Arkham Asylum named the Joker approaches the crime bosses with an offer to kill Batman for pay. At the same time, Batman aka Bruce Wayne and Lieutenant James Gordon contemplate including the new district attorney Harvey Dent in their plan to eradicate the mob, as he could be the public hero Batman cannot be. Harvey Dent has been dating Wayne's childhood friend and object of desire, Rachel Dawes. The conflict between Batman, the Joker and their allies escalates to a well-directed action sequence that ends tragically. And it is here where I believe that the movie faltered.

”THE DARK KNIGHT” could have ended with that tragic moment, followed by the Joker’s manipulation of a badly wounded Harvey Dent into madness and his eventual capture or death. Instead, the Nolan brothers and Goyer allowed the Joker to escape and continued the story with Dent’s vengeful hunt for those he considered responsible for helping the Joker. And then . . . the screenwriters dumped a scenario that involved the Joker resorting to a Green Goblin-style maneuver involving two ferryboats packed with explosives. The situation involved him telling the passengers on each that the only way to save themselves is to trigger the explosives on the other ferry; otherwise, at midnight he will destroy them both remotely. All of this occurred during the movie’s last half hour and quite frankly, it was a half hour I could have done without.

I found the entire ferryboats sequence so unbelievable and contrived. It seemed as if the Nolans and Goyer teased movie audiences with the possibility of seeing the darker side of the average citizen . . . and wimped out, because they would rather stroke the moviegoers' egos with some "nobility of man" bullshit by allowing some of the passengers refuse to blow or try to blow each other to kingdom come, instead of telling the truth about human nature. Very disappointing. It would have been more interesting or grittier if one of the ferryboats had blown up before Batman could prevent the situation. Or . . . the Caped Crusader could have prevented the passengers from blowing up the boats at the last minute. Batman would have saved the people, but the Joker would have proven a point about the reality of human nature.

A fan had pointed out that the ending of the ferryboat sequence were the Nolans' message about leaving a sliver of hope for the audiences that human beings do have the capacity to do good things. I realize that this was the Nolans' aim, but this is a message that has been done to death by authors, filmmakers, playwrights and television showrunners for eons. The problem is that writers, screenwriters and moviemakers are always giving the public this "sliver of hope". They call themselves pointing out the dark side of humanity and then they pervert these messages by allowing them to come out of the mouths from villains like the Joker, before the latter is eventually proven wrong. It just seems like a cop out to me. Which was why I found the whole ferryboat sequence something of a joke. Sure, human beings are capable of doing some good. But in that particular situation? I rather doubt it. If there is one trait that humanity possess, it is a talent for self-preservation. It would have been more realistic to me if the boats had detonated or Batman had prevented this before anyone on one or both of those boats had activated the bombs. Granted, Batman/Bruce Wayne would have been disappointed in Gotham’s citizens, but he would have learned a valuable lesson about the very people he calls himself protecting. Even better, I would have preferred if the Nolans and Goyer had never added that sequence in the first place.

As for Harvey Dent’s little criminal hunt for those he deemed responsible for helping the Joker . . . I would have been more satisfied if Nolan and his co-writers had ended the movie with Dent’s eventual slide into darkness in that hospital room and saved his transformation into a twisted vigilante and arch villain for the third film in The Dark Knight Trilogy. This would have prevented the movie from being unnecessarily a half hour long. It would have saved the talented Aaron Eckhart for the third film as “Two-Faced” Harvey. It would have spared moviegoers of that ludicrous ending in which Batman and Gordon decided to allow the former assume blame of Dent's crimes in order to save the reputation of the D.A. I understand why they did it. If Harvey had been exposed for killing two cops and a crime boss, all of those criminals he had prosecuted could have been released from prison. But why not simply inform others that Harvey had been killed without exposing his murderous actions? Why have Batman take the blame for his crimes? Why end the movie with Jim Gordon's pretentious speech about justice and the Caped Crusader? And did Batman and Gordon really harbored such a low opinion of Gotham's citizens that the latter had to be treated like children? With Harvey as "Two-Faced" at the end of the film, perhaps Nolan's trilogy could have ended with a better film. Who knows?

The performances in "THE DARK KNIGHT" were superb. Christian Bale beautifully captured the growing dilemma of Bruce Wayne’s desire for a normal life with Rachel Dawes, juxtaposed with his role as Gotham’s costumed vigilante and his growing power over the city’s criminal element, thanks to his alliance with police lieutenant James Gordon and the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent. There is one aspect of Bale’s performance I did not like – namely the growling tone he used, while in the Batman persona. I did not care for it in ”BATMAN BEGINS”. I cared for it even less in this film.

I have noticed how many have expressed the view that Maggie Gyllenhaal's portrayal of Rachel Dawes was better than Katie Holmes in the 2005 film. Personally, I did not see much of a difference in the quality of their performances. Both actresses gave first-rate performances. But . . . the screenwriters’ portrayal of Rachel in this film disappointed me. They had turned her character into an object of desire. She was Bruce Wayne's prize for giving up the Batman persona, as soon as he could get Dent to assume the role of Gotham's "hero". She was Harvey’s love interest and Girl Friday all rolled into one. And for the Joker, she was a means to get at Batman, once he realized how the latter felt about her. There were times when Rachel's character almost seemed irrelevant and a sad decline from the legal and moral dynamo that Holmes had portrayed in ”BATMAN BEGINS”.

Heath Ledger as the Joker. What can I say? The man was brilliant. He made Jack Nicholson’s Joker look like chump change. Honestly. One of the reasons why I have never care for the Joker character in the past was due to his over-the-top persona. Cesar Romero’s Joker had somewhat impressed me but not completely, regardless of the numerous insane clown laughs he had utilized. Nicholson’s Joker was a little too over-the-top for my tastes. As one can see, I do not have a love for overly theatrical characters, unless they are done right. Granted, Ledger portrayed the Joker as over-the-top. But somehow . . . I really do not know how to describe it. Somehow, he managed to infuse some kind of control in the character’s insanity, not only with his behavior, but also with a talent for emotional manipulation and the views he had spouted to Batman and other characters. Do I believe that the Joker was Ledger’s best performance? No. I believe that the character was one of his two best performances, the other being Ennis DelMar from 2005’s ”BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN”. Do I believe that Ledger had deserved the Best Supporting Actor Oscar he had won for his performance, despite his death? Hmmmm . . . yes. He truly was that good.

The other truly superb performance came from Aaron Eckhart as Gotham’s new District Attorney, Harvey Dent. One of Eckhart’s virtues was that he formed an excellent screen chemistry with Maggie Gyllenhaal. Frankly, I found their romance more believable than her relationship with Bruce Wayne. Eckhart projected a great deal of magnetism, charm and intensity into his portrayal of Dent. But I was more impressed by the way he expressed Dent’s descent into revenge and madness in the film's last half hour. Although I disliked the movie’s last half hour, Eckhart’s performance in it almost made it bearable.

Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Cillian Murphy all reprized their roles from the first film. All four gave solid performances, but only Oldman’s role as James Gordon seemed bigger. I found Gordon’s fake death somewhat contrived and manipulative. Aside from the creation of the Rachel Dawes character, everything about the two Batman movies directed by Nolan have adhered to the Batman canon. Which is why I found it difficult to believe that Gordon was dead halfway in the movie. Alfred’s role seemed to have diminished from the first film, despite Caine's excellent performance. Freeman’s Lucius Fox seemed to be quite aware that Bruce is Batman and seemed to be acting as the latter’s armorer, as well as Wayne Enterprises’ CEO. The only problem I had with the Fox character was his opposition against Wayne/Batman’s development an advanced surveillance system that can listen in and track the movement of any of the thousands of cell phones in the city. I am not claiming that his opinion was wrong, but I found the whole scenario contrived. As much as I had enjoyed Cillian Murphy’s portrayal of Dr. Crane/the Scarecrow in ”BATMAN BEGINS”, I found his less than five minutes appearance in ”THE DARK KNIGHT” a waste of the actor’s time . . . and mine.

Composers Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard returned to score the sequel. I must admit that I had been impressed by their work in ”BATMAN BEGINS” and had expected another exceptional score by them. Unfortunately, I barely remembered the score for "THE DARK KNIGHT". I understand that they had rehashed the original score for this movie and added a new theme or two. But it all came off as unmemorable for me.

”THE DARK KNIGHT” had the potential to be my favorite film from the summer of 2008. But there were some aspects – the portrayal of Rachel Dawes’ character, Zimmer and Newton Howard’s score, the portrayal of some of the minor characters and the contrived writing that dominated the movie’s last half hour – that I believe had ruined the movie’s chances of achieving this potential. Fortunately, the virtues outweighed the flaws and in the end, ”THE DARK KNIGHT” managed to remain first-rate and become – in my view – my second favorite summer 2008 film.

Boston Creme Pie

 

Below is a brief look at and recipe for the famous New England dessert called the “Boston Creme Pie”:

BOSTON CREME PIE

Judging by the name of this famous dessert, one would assume that the Boston Creme Pie was created in Boston, Massachusetts. And one would be right. However, there is a slight confusion over the dessert’s origins. According to John F. Mariani’s 1999 book, “Encyclopedia of American Food and Drink”, the Boston Creme Pie originated during the Early American period and was known as either the “Pudding-Cake Pie”; or when made with a raspberry jelly filling, “Mrs. Washington’s Pie”.

But the current dessert that features the chocolate topping is known as the Boston Creme Pie. And according to many cookbooks, Armenian-French chef M. Sanzian created the dessert at Boston’s famous Parker House Hotel in 1855 or 1856. Like the Pudding-Cake Pie and Mrs. Washington’s Pie, the Boston Creme Pie is actually a pudding and cake combination that comprises at least two or three layers of sponge cake filled with vanilla flavored custard or crème pâtissière. In the case of the Boston Creme Pie, the cake is topped with a chocolate glaze called Ganache. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts declared the Boston Creme Pie as its official dessert in 1996.

The following is a recipe for the dish from thehungrymouse.com website:

Boston Creme Pie

Ingredients

Cake
1/2 cup butter (that’s 1 stick), softened on the counter for 20 minutes or so
1 cup sugar
3 egg yolks
1 tsp. vanilla extract
3/4 cup milk
2 cups cake flour
2 tsp. baking powder
pinch of salt

Cream Filling
1/2 cup sugar
4 egg yolks
6 Tbls. flour
1 1/2 cups milk
2 tsp. vanilla extract

Chocolate Frosting
4 oz. semisweet chocolate, chopped
1/2 cup heavy cream
1 Tbls. butter

Preparations

Cake
Preheat your oven to 375 degrees. Spray 2 8-inch round cake pans with oil, then line with circles of parchment paper. Set them aside. Combine the sugar and butter in the bowl of your mixer. Beat them together until well combined. Add in the egg yolks. Beat again until well combined and kind of fluffy. Scrape down the sides of your bowl with a spatula. Add the milk. Combine the flour, baking powder, and salt in a small bowl. Stir them together with a whisk to combine well. Toss the dry mixture into the butter/sugar in the mixing bowl. Mix on medim-high for maybe 20 or 30 seconds to combine, just until the batter comes together.

The batter will be relatively thick and stiff. Give the batter a stir or two with a spatula to be sure that it’s mixed well and no dry ingredients remain in the very bottom of the bowl. Divide the batter evenly between your two prepared cake pans. Smooth it down with a spatula so it fills the whole pan and is relatively even. Bake cake the 2 cakes for 20-23 minutes at 375 degrees.

They are done when they are golden brown on top and feel firm (not jiggly) in the middle when pressed with a finger. When inserted in the center, a toothpick should come out clean. Cool the cakes in the pans for about 10 minutes. Then, gently run a knife around the whole edge to loosen it, and remove each cake from the pan. (Because you lined each pan with parchment paper, this should be easy). Set the cakes on a rack to cool completely. If your cakes wound up a little crusty on the edges, like this, don’t worry. You’re going to trim those crisp edges right off when you assemble your Boston Cream Pie.

Custard
Fill a medium-sized pot with a few inches of water. Set it on the stove over high heat to bring it up to a boil. Then put the sugar and egg yolks in a large heatproof bowl. Whisk together until well combined. Add the flour. Whisk to combine. Pour in the milk. And the vanilla. Whisk to combine. When your pot of water is boiling, drop the heat to low. Set the bowl on top of the pot of water. Whisk it constantly for 5-7 minutes until it starts thicken. Keep whisking until the custard gets very thick. It’s done when it coats the back of a spoon. Give it a taste. It should have a nice custard-y taste, without any hint of raw flour. When it is done, take it off the heat. Cool it on the counter to room temperature, then pop it in the fridge to chill it completely.

Chocolate Frosting
Fill a medium-sized pot with a few inches of water. Set it on the stove over high heat to bring it up to a boil. If you are making the frosting right after the custard, just use the same pot of simmering water. Chop up the chocolate. Put it into a large heatproof bowl. Pour in the cream. When your pot of water is boiling, drop the heat to low. Set the bowl on top of the pot of water. Toss in the butter. The chocolate should start to melt almost immediately. Whisk to combine. Keep whisking until all the chocolate is melted and you have a uniform mixture. Set the chocolate frosting aside to cool. As it cools, it will thicken up. If you put it in the fridge, keep a close eye on it. It can go from nice and thick to solid fudge in no time flat.

Assemble the Dessert

Do not do this until all of your components are completely cool. If you try to put it together when any piece is warm, you will wind up with a slippery, drippy mess.

Start by trimming your cakes. Carefully set them one on top of the other. With a serrated bread knife, cut the edges off. Go slowly and press down on the top of the cake with one hand to keep it from ripping. Should you have an accident with one of the cakes, like this, do not fret. Just use that cake as the bottom layer. The custard filling will help glue the whole thing together once it gets cold in the fridge.

Set one cake on your serving platter, bottom side facing up. Do this so that your custard goes on a flat—not slightly domed—surface. Grab the custard filling from the fridge. It should be nice and thick. Spoon it out onto the cake. Reserve a few spoonfuls of custard for later, to help stick the almonds to the side of the cake. Spread the custard to the edges with a rubber spatula. Put the second cake right on top. Grab your chocolate frosting. Spoon it out onto the top of the cake. Spread it around until the top of the cake is covered. Pop two toothpicks into the cake to hold the layers together for now, until it’s completely chilled. With your finger, brush the leftover custard onto the edges of the cake, so it’s covered in a thin layer.

Note

According to this recipe, the Boston Cream Pie is best served on the day that it is put together. The dessert has three parts – the cake, the custard filling and the chocolate frosting. Following the preparation of all three parts, they need to be completely cooled before the dessert is assembled.

"THE OTHER GUYS" (2010) Photo Gallery

 

Below are photos from the 2010 action comedy, "THE OTHER GUYS".  Directed by Adam McKay, the movie starred Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg:

"THE OTHER GUYS" (2010) Photo Gallery

"SLEEPING MURDER" (2006) Review

 

"SLEEPING MURDER" (2006) Review

I might as well say it. The 1976 novel, "Sleeping Murder" is one of my favorites written by mystery writer, Agatha Christie. In fact, it is such a big favorite of mine that when I learned about the recent 2006 adaptation that aired on Britain's ITV network, I made a great effort to find it on DVD.

Although the 1976 novel proved to be the last Christie novel featuring elderly sleuth, Miss Jane Marple, the author wrote it during the early years of World War II. In fact, she did the same for the 1975 Hercule Poirot novel, "Curtain". Christie wrote both novels and placed them in a bank vault, in case she failed to survive the Blitz. During the early 1970s, the author authorized the publication of "Curtain" for 1975 and "Sleeping Murder" for 1976. I never warmed up to the 1975 novel, but I became a fan of the latter one. The novel produced two television adaptations and a radio version. Just recently, I watched a DVD copy of the 2006 television movie that featured Geraldine McEwan as Miss Jane Marple.

"SLEEPING MURDER" begins in 1933 India, where British diplomat Kelvin Halliday receives news that his wife Claire had just been killed in a traffic accident. The widower returns home to England with his three year-old daughter Gwenda and meets one Helen Marsden, a singer with a troupe of music performers known as "The Funnybones". Nineteen years later, a recently engaged Gwenda Halliday returns to England in order to find a home where she and her future husband Giles, who is a wealthy businessman living in India, can live. Accompanied by Giles' assistant, Hugh Hornbeam, Gwenda finds a house in Dillmouth, a town on the south coast of England. While workmen set about repairing the house, Gwenda realizes that it seems familiar to her. Hugh suggests she speak to an old acquaintance of his, Miss Jane Marple of St. Mary Mead. Gwenda and Hugh meet with Miss Marple at a local theater showing the John Webster play, "The Duchess of Malfi". During one of the play's climatic scenes, Gwenda screams in terror , as she remembers witnessing a pair of hands strangling a woman. Along with Miss Marple and Hugh, Gwenda realizes she may have witnessed a murder when she was a child living in Dillmouth. All three also discover that the murdered woman may have been Gwenda's stepmother, Helen Marsden Halliday.

I . . . did not dislike "SLEEPING MURDER". I thought this adaptation featured fine performances from a cast led by the always superb Geraldine McEwan. The television movie also featured memorable performances from Sophia Myles and Aidan McArdle as Gwenda Halliday and Hugh Hornbeam. I was also impressed by Julian Wadham as Kelvin Halliday; Martin Kemp, Dawn French and Paul McGann as three of Helen's Funnybones colleagues; and Phil Davis as Dr. James Kennedy, Kelvin's original brother-in-law. It was nice to see Harriet Walter give a cameo as an actress portraying the lead role in "The Duchess of Malfi" production. The rest of the cast gave solid performances, aside from two struck me as slightly problematic. Sarah Parish's portrayal of Funnybones wallflower-turned successful singer Evie Ballatine seemed to be an exercise in character extremism . . . and a bit over-the-top. I could say the same about Geraldine Chapln's portrayal of the gloomy Mrs. Fane, mother of Walter Fane, a mild-mannered lawyer who knew Gwenda's mother.

"SLEEPING MURDER" also benefited from colorful and sharp photography, thanks to Alan Almond's cinematography. I also found Frances Tempest's costume designs for the early 1950s sequences rather gorgeous to look at. However, her designs for the 1930s scenes seemed to be something of a mixed bag. Overall, I had no complaints about the movie's production designs and the performances. But I did not love this movie. In fact, I barely liked it.

The problem - at least for me - is that the positive aspects of "SLEEPING MURDER" failed to hide or compensate what proved to be the movie's real problem . . . namely the screenplay written by Stephen Churchett. I do not completely blame him. The producers of "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S MARPLE" and director Edward Hall were willing to use it. I have no problems with a screenwriter changing certain aspects of a source novel or play for a screen adaptation. Especially if said change manages to improve the story or make it more effective for a screen adaptation. But the changes Churchett made to Christie's story did not improve it in the end or made it effective for the television screen. Personally, I found Churchett's changes more convoluted than a novel written by James Ellroy.

First of all, Churchett, Hall or both allowed the Gwenda Reed character from the novel to become the unmarried Gwenda Halliday, engaged to be married. The Giles Reed character was reduced to Gwenda's unseen and wealthy fiancé, who turned out to be a jerk. Churchett and Hall decided to create a new love interest for Gwenda, the quiet and faithful Hugh Hornbam, who works for her fiancé. Why did Hall and Churchett give Gwenda a new love interest? What was wrong with using the original Giles Reed character from the novel? Was it really that important to inject a new romance, which seemed to be the hallmark of many "MARPLE" productions? Also, a musical troupe known as the Funnybones was introduced to this story. Three of the original suspects - Richard "Dickie" and Janet Erskine, and Jackie Afflick - became members of the Funnybones, along with Helen. The addition of the Funnybones also produced another suspect for the story - a singer named Evie Ballatine. Why did Churchett create the Funnybones in the first place? Perhaps he and Hall thought the musical troupe would make Helen's character more "colorful". On the other hand, I found the addition of the musical troupe UNNECESSARY . . . like other changes and additions to this story.

The above changes seemed nothing to me compared to the changes made to the Helen Halliday character. It is bad enough that Churchett transformed her from a nice, young woman who became a stepmother and wife to a professional singer. Go figure. Worse . . . Helen Marsden Halliday was eventually revealed to be Kelvin Halliday's first wife, Claire. In other words, Gwenda's mother and stepmother proved to be one and the same. How did this happen? Well, when Claire Kennedy went to India to get married, she changed her mind and became a thief. She met Kelvin Halliday, married him and gave birth to their only child Gwenda. However, when the police in British India became suspicious of her, Claire and Kelvin plotted her fake death, she returned to England and joined the Funnybones, and "married" Kelvin as Helen Marsden, following his and Gwenda's return to India. Confused? I was when Miss Marple revealed all of this to Gwenda, Hugh and the suspects. When this whole scenario regarding Claire/Helen's background was revealed, I could only shake my head in disbelief. What on earth was Churchett thinking when he created this confusing background for her? What were the producers and Hall thinking for accepting it? In fact, all of the changes made for this adaptation proved to be unnecessary, but also transformed "SLEEPING MURDER" into one convoluted mess.

What else can I say about "SLEEPING MURDER"? It featured some pretty good performances from a cast led by Geraldine McEwan. I liked its production values very much, especially Alan Almond's photography and Frances Tempest's costume designs for the 1950s sequences. But . . . I feel that screenwriter Stephen Churchett made a lot of unnecessary changes to Christie's original story that left the movie into a big, narrative mess. And I cannot help but wonder what director Edward Hall and the producers were thinking to allow these changes to happen.

"THE CHISHOLMS" (1979): Chapter I Commentary

 

"THE CHISHOLMS" (1979): CHAPTER I Commentary

Years ago, before the advent of DVDs, I had perused my local video rental store for something to watch. I came across a miniseries called "THE CHISHOLMS". Due to it being a Western and possessing a running time of four hours and thirty minutes, I decided to give it a chance. I managed to purchase a VHS copy of the miniseries and enjoy for several years. But with the advent of the DVD and my VHS player going on the blink, I had to wait quite a while before I could finally get a DVD copy of it. 

Based upon Evan Hunter's 1976 novel, "THE CHISHOLMS" told the story of a family from western Virginia, who make the momentous decision to travel west to California after losing part of their farm to a neighbor, due to some unusual circumstances. Unlike many other television and movie productions about the westward migration during the 1840s, "THE CHIISHOLMS" took its time in setting up the story. In this first episode, it spent at least an hour introducing the Chisholm family - namely:

*Hadley Chisholm - the family's patriarch and owner of a farm in western Virginia
*Minerva Chisholm - the family's matriarch
*William "Will" Chisholm - Hadley and Minerva's oldest son, who is also a veteran of the Texas Revolution
*Gideon Chisholm - Hadley and Minerva's second son
*Bonnie Sue Chisholm - Hadley and Minerva's older daughter and Beau's twin
*Beau Chisholm - Hadley and Minerva's youngest son and Bonnie Sue's twin
*Annabel Chisholm - Hadley and Minerva's younger daughter and youngest offspring

The first episode or Chapter I began with Will's wedding to a young local woman named Elizabeth during the spring of 1843. Also, the family is unaware of Bonnie Sue's romance with a young man named Brian Cassidy. Unfortunately for her and Brian, the Chisholms and the Cassidys have been engaged in a feud ever since Hadley's brother had rejected Brian's aunt at the wedding altar several decades ago. When the latter died, the Chisholms and the Cassidys discovered that she had received a portion of the Chisholm land - the farm's most fertile - from Hadley's brother as compensation for being dumped. She never revealed this to her family or the Chisholms. But she did leave her land to her brother and Brian's father, Luke Cassidy, who did not wait long to demand that the Chisholms hand over the land. Matters worsen for the Chisholms when Will's bride die from an infection after giving birth to an unborn child.

With no fertile land to farm, Hadley Chisholm decides to pack his family and migrate to California. Most of the family agrees with his decision, except Minerva, who is reluctant to leave Virginia; and Bonnie Sue, who is reluctant to leave Brian. The journey west goes without a hitch, until the family reaches Louisville, Kentucky. There, they discover from a young Western guide named Lester Hackett that they had departed Virginia at least a month or two late for the journey to California. The family had reached Louisville in mid-May 1844, around the time when most emigrant wagon trains usually departed Independence, Missouri. Upon learning this, Hadley changes his mind about the journey to California and decides to return to Virginia. But Will informs him that there are other members of the family are willing to utilize Lester's plan that would eliminate some time from their trip to Independence. After the Chisholms decide to continue west via a family vote, they utilize Lester's plan by boarding a flat-bottom boat that takes them to Evansville in western Indiana, cutting off their journey by a few weeks.

Some people might find the first hour of "THE CHISHOLMS" rather hard to endure. Most movie and television productions usually spend at least fifteen minutes in introducing its characters and conveying the reasons behind their decision to migrate to the West."THE CHISHOLMS" spent an hour. Personally, this did not bother me, for I found the circumstances behind the Chisholms' decision to head for California rather interesting. Especially since the circumstances involved a potential feud with another family. Other reasons why I rather enjoyed the miniseries' first hour was how the circumstances in which the family made its departure originated with Hadley Chisholm's displeasure over the neighborhood's new minister from Vermont and how the latter conducted Elizabeth Chisholm's funeral. I would explain how Hadley's conflict over the new minister led to the family sneaking away from their home in the middle of the night. But it would require a great deal of narration on my part. And honestly, I would suggest that you simply watch the miniseries.

Once the family hit the road for California, the miniseries went into full steam. Chapter I only followed the Chisholms from Virginia to southwestern Indiana, but a good deal happened in that half hour. The temptation to return home to Virginia hovered over the family all the way to Louisville. And when the family learned from Lester Hackett that they had left Virginia about a month or so too late, even Hadley was tempted to turn around. What I found interesting about this turn of events is that Chisholms' decision on whether to return to Virginia or continue west to California depended upon a family vote . . . and the instant attraction between Bonnie Sue Chisholm and Lester. Personally, I would have ended Chapter I with that scene inside a Louisville stable. Hadley and Minerva's willingness to decide the whole matter on a vote, along with the sexual attraction between Bonnie Sue and Lester, would end up producing strong consequences later in the miniseries and in the short-lived television series that followed. Instead, the Chisholms experienced a brief journey down the Ohio River on a broad horn (flat-bottom raft), while Minerva endured the unwanted attention of the broad horn's captain (or patroon) named Jimmy Jackson. By the time the family reached the outskirts of Evansville, it had reached the point of no return.

Another aspect about "THE CHISHOLMS" that I enjoyed, was how the producers, director Mel Stuart and the screenwriters utilized the production's historical background without hitting viewers over the head with facts. The family had departed Virginia in 1844, a year that featured a Presidential election. Not once did the topic of the election graced anyone's lips. But the miniseries made it clear that Will Chisholm was a veteran of the Texas Revolution of 1836. The miniseries also brought up the topic of slavery. The narrative pointed out that Hadley's wealthiest neighbor was a planter and slave owner. And during the last half hour of Chapter I, a coffle of slaves was among the other passengers aboard Jimmy Jackson's broad horn, leading Minerva Chisholm to express anti-slavery sentiments. I also enjoyed how the miniseries gave television viewers a lengthy peek into life in the early-to-mid 19th century Appalachia. I have always admired Aaron Copeland's score for the miniseries. But I must admit that his score contributed to this episode's first hour, which featured the Chisholms' life in western Virginia. 

Most of the production's historical background seemed to revolve around the family's westward journey. Unlike many Hollywood productions, television viewers did not see the Chisholms' wagon being pulled by horses (which is historically inaccurate). And the narrative went out of its way to point out that the family began its westbound journey about a month or two late. I also enjoyed the brief montage that featured the Chisholms' early start on the journey and what it took for them to maintain supplies and keep their wagon in condition. Steven P. Sardanis's production designs, the art direction that he provided with Fred Price, Charles Korian and Charles B. Price's set decorations, and Tom Costick's costumes (to a certain extent), did a great job in re-creating western Virginia and the Ohio River Valley circa 1844.

But in the, the cast proved to be the best thing about "THE CHISHOLMS". I must commend casting director Vicki Rosenberg for gathering a first-rate collection of performers for the cast. The miniseries featured solid performances from Dean Hill, Jack Wallace, Maureen Steindler, Tom Taylor, James O'Reilly and Gavin Troster; even if they did not exactly rock my boat. Glynnis O'Connor gave a charming performance as Will's young wife, Elizabeth Chisholm. Anthony Zerbe gave a spotless performance as the sleazy flat boat patroon, Jimmy Jackson. But the one supporting performance that caught my eye came from Charles Frank, who gave the first of a series of dazzling performance as the charmingly ambiguous Lester Hackett.

Rosenberg casting of the Chisholm family proved to be even more impressive to me. Susan Swift gave a very charming and balanced performance as the family's youngest member, Annabel Chisholm, who seemed divided between the adventure of migrating to California and being mindful of her mother's reluctance to move. James Van Patten gave a very energetic and intense performance as the family's hot-tempered member, Beau Chisholm. Stacy Nelkin's portrayal of the sensual, yet pragmatic Bonnie Sue Chisholm struck me as very skillful, which is why her performance was one of my favorites in the series. Brian Kerwin, whom I remember from the 1982 miniseries, "THE BLUE AND THE GRAY", seemed a bit laid back as middle son, Gideon Chisholm. But he gave a charming performance in the end. Ben Murphy portrayed the oldest sibling, Will Chisholm. And I thought he did a great job in revealing how Will seemed to be an interesting combination of his parents. I was especially impressed by how he handled Will's grief over Elizabeth's death. 

Years after I had first seen "THE CHISHOLMS", I was surprised to learn that the two leads - Robert Preston and Rosemary Harris - had first worked together on the 1966 Broadway play, "THE LION IN THE WINTER". I do not if having them reunite for the 1979 miniseries was Rosenberg or someone's idea, but it was a damn good one, all the same. What can I say? Whatever magic Preston and Harris had created on Broadway back in the mid-1960s, they managed to re-create it front of the television camera some 12 to 13 years later. In some ways, the pair seemed like the yin and yang of the Chisholm family. They were so perfect together that I do not know how else to describe their performance.

Before I end this article, I must admit there were one or two aspects of "THE CHISHOLMS" that either did not impress me or . . . confused me. Although I believe that Tom Costick's costumes added to the production mid-1840s setting . . . but only to a certain degree. It did seem that a great deal of Costick's costumes looked as if they had come out of a Hollywood warehouse, instead of being created by him. Especially the women's costumes. Even those costumes worn by well-to-do women in the Louisville sequence gave that impression. And I am a little confused about the circumstances surrounding Hadley's loss of his most fertile cornfield. I understood how he lost the actual land to Luke Cassidy. What I did understand was how Cassidy managed to take possession of the corn that the Chisholm family had already sown. Surely the court would have allowed the Chisholms to profit from the corn sown from seeds purchased by them? If someone could clear this matter for me, please do so.

Despite my quibbles regarding the costumes and the matter surrounding the cornfield lost to the Chisholms, I enjoyed Chapter I of "THE CHISHOLMS" very much. In fact, watching it reminded me why it had become one of my favorite miniseries in the first place. Why on earth did I wait so long in watching it again? Oh well . . . on to Chapter II.