Wednesday, January 8, 2025

"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" (1980) Review


 










"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" (1980) Review


As many fans of Jane Austen must know, there have been several screen and television adaptations of the author’s most celebrated novel, "Pride and Prejudice", published in 1813. I usually come across at least five of those versions – including the six-part BBC adaptation that aired in the U.S. in 1980. The miniseries was adapted by Fay Weldon and directed by Cyril Coke.

Only someone unfamiliar with Austen’s story would not know that "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" told the story of Elizabeth Bennet, the second-born daughter of an English gentleman and landowner in Regency England. The story focused on the efforts of her volatile mother to find eligible husbands for Elizabeth and her four sisters. It is also a love story about Elizabeth’s tumultuous relationship with a wealthy and haughty gentleman named Fitzwilliam Darcy. Through six episodes, the miniseries explored Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy’s emotions, as their relationship went from mild hostility, misunderstandings and prejudice, to love, respect and marriage. Many Austen fans consider Weldon’s adaptation to be the most faithful to the 1813 novel. After my recent viewing of the miniseries, I realized that I could never agree with that opinion.

I am not saying that ”PRIDE AND PREJUDICE” strongly differed from Austen’s novel. But I can honestly say that it was no more faithful than the 1995 version. Only screenwriter Fay Weldon’s variations differ from Andrew Davies’. In fact, most these differences were especially obvious in the segment that featured Elizabeth’s visit to Hunsford, the Collins’ home in Kent. But these differences did not lessen my enjoyment of the production. However, there were some aspects of the miniseries that did.

One aspect of ”PRIDE AND PREJUDICE” that annoyed me was its occasionally slow pacing. There were moments when I found myself wondering if I was watching a filmed play. Most fans would dismiss this complaint on the grounds that many BBC miniseries productions had been shot in this static style. True, but I have seen a few of these old productions that managed to maintain a brisk pacing. Another aspect of the miniseries that annoyed me was the internal monologues that expressed Elizabeth’s thoughts. This was especially apparent in scenes that reflected Elizabeth’s opinion of the letter she had received from Mr. Darcy following his disastrous marriage proposal; and in the sequences that featured her thoughts on her sister Lydia’s elopement with George Wickham and her parents’ marriage. Frankly, I found the use of this film device simply a cheap way to reflect Elizabeth’s opinions on the subjects. And these monologues nearly bogged the series’ pacing to a standstill.

But the real disappointment proved to be the miniseries’ portrayal of the Netherfield Ball. The ball given by Mr. Darcy’s close friend, Charles Bingley, was one of the novel’s centerpieces in nearly every adaptation of ”Pride and Prejudice”. The ball was replaced with a garden fĂȘte in the 1940 version. But it still turned out to be one of the movie’s centerpieces. So, why did Fay Weldon dropped the ball with this particular sequence? In this version, the Netherfield Ball segment lasted a little over six minutes. Elizabeth expressed her displeasure over Mr. Wickham’s non-appearance and the prospect of dancing with Mr. Darcy. She danced with both Mr. Darcy and her cousin, William Collins. She traded barbs with Caroline Bingley. And Elizabeth also witnessed her mother’s embarrassing boasts about elder sister Jane’s romance with Mr. Bingley. By deleting Mr. Collins brief discussion with Mr. Darcy and the embarrassing behavior of the other members of the Bennet family, Weldon’s screenplay seemed to have rendered the sequence half done. Worse, Cyril Coke shot the sequence at an incredibly fast pace. Between Weldon’s deletions and Coke’s pacing, the Netherfield Ball sequence seemed like such a disappointing affair.

When I first saw ”PRIDE AND PREJUDICE”, I became immediately enamored of the miniseries. As an adolescent, I thought it was one of the best things to come from British television. After my last viewing of the series, my opinion of it has somewhat diminished. But I still consider it to be very entertaining. Austen’s wit remained intact. Well . . . somewhat. Some of the jokes – like Elizabeth’s comment about Darcy’s and her penchant for “amazing” statements – failed to make any impact, due to Elizabeth Garvie’s delivery of the line. And many of Mr. Bennet’s witticisms seemed angry, instead of funny. But plenty of humor remained in the miniseries. Elizabeth’s first meeting with Lady Catherine de Bourgh and a reunion with Mr. Darcy struck me as one of the miniseries’ funniest scenes. Just about every scene with Mrs. Bennet or Mr. Collins provided plenty of laughs. The romances featured in ”PRIDE AND PREJUDICE” remained strong as ever, especially between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy.

I would not consider Paul Wheeler’s photography for ”PRIDE AND PREJUDICE” to be that colorful. In fact, it looked slightly faded. One could attribute this to the fact that the miniseries has been aging for the past thirty years. Yet, I have seen other television productions made around the same time or earlier that looked more colorful. But I must admit that I enjoyed Joan Ellacott’s costume designs. They were certainly colorful and properly reflected the characters’ social status.

Any adaptation of ”Pride and Prejudice” would be nothing without strong leads to portray the two main characters, Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy. The 1980 miniseries certainly benefitted from strong performances provided by Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul. Garvie proved to be a very soft-spoken Elizabeth Bennet, reminding me of Greer Garson’s performance in the same role in the 1940 adaptation. Yet, beneath the soft tones, Garvie provided plenty of wit and steel. I found her performance very enjoyable. And David Rintoul definitely projected Mr. Darcy’s haughty demeanor. Some consider his performance to be the epitome portrayal of Austen’s famous character. Perhaps. Perhaps not. There were moments when Rintoul’s Mr. Darcy seemed a bit too haughty – especially when the character was supposed to be falling in love with Elizabeth. But I believe he still gave a first-rate performance. And he provided one of the miniseries’ funniest moments in a scene featuring Elizabeth and the Collins’ first visit to Rosings Park.

The rest of the cast seemed solid. But I can only think of a few exceptional performances. One came from Priscilla Morgan, whose portrayal of Mrs. Bennet managed to be extremely irritating without her resorting to caricature. I was also impressed by Marsha Fitzalan, who proved that Caroline Bingley could be both subtle and spiteful at the same time. Tessa Peake-Jones gave an entertaining performance as the bookish and pompous Mary Bennet. Her portrayal seemed more subtle than other actresses who have portrayed the character. Peter Settlelen also gave a solid performance as George Wickham, but he came off as too hale and hearty for me to consider him as an effective villain. And Peter Howell was certainly hilarious as the boorish and obsequious Mr. William Collins, Elizabeth’s cousin and Mr. Bennet’s heir. However, there were moments when he seemed a bit over-the-top.

And then there were the performances that I found questionable. I must admit that I was not impressed by Natalie Ogle’s portrayal of the childish Lydia Bennet. I found her acting skills somewhat amateurish. Claire Higgins, who portrayed Kitty Bennet seemed a little too old for the role. There were times when her Kitty seemed more mature (in a negative way) than the other four sisters. And Kitty is supposed to be the second youngest sibling in the family. Actor Moray Watson gave a sharp and entertaining performance as the Bennets’ patriarch. But I found his wit a bit too harsh and angry at times.

”PRIDE AND PREJUDICE” has its share of flaws, which I have pointed out in this review. But its virtues outweighed the flaws – the biggest ones being the first-rate performances of the two leads, Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul. Screenwriter Fay Weldon and director Cyril Coke did an above-average job in adapting Jane Austen’s most famous novel.





Saturday, January 4, 2025

"THE TOWN" (2010) Photo Gallery

 



















Below are photos from "THE TOWN", the 2010 adaptation of Chuck Hogan's 2004 novel, "Prince of Thieves". Directed by Ben Affleck, the movie starred him, Rebecca Hall, Jon Hamm and Jeremy Renner:




"THE TOWN" (2010) Photo Gallery



























































































Monday, December 23, 2024

"The Moral Landscape of the STAR WARS Saga" - Introduction

 


Below is the introduction to a series of small articles I plan to write about the moral landscape in the "STAR WARS" saga, created by George Lucas. Each article will focus the moral makeup of each character or group of characters:



"THE MORAL LANDSCAPE OF THE STAR WARS SAGA" - INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Morality has always seemed to be a tricky subject with humans. Probably more so than we care to admit. We like to pretend that the majority of all human societies have basic rules when it comes to morality. But I suspect that is nothing more than an illusion. I believe that each individual . . . or each group has his/her or its own moral compass. What one individual is prepared to tolerate, another is not. It all depends upon our individual feelings regarding a certain matter.

I could probably say the same about the "STAR WARS" saga, created by filmmaker, George Lucas. Many "STAR WARS" fans love to claim that their own interpretation of the moral compass of the saga’s major characters exactly matched Lucas’ intentions in his films. I wish I could say the same. But in the end, I realized that each person has his or her own interpretation of an artist’s work. And sometimes, that interpretation might also be different from the artist’s. Having expressed this view, I decided to express my own view of the moral landscape presented in the six movies of the "STAR WARS" saga.

I am going to make a confession. When I first saw the original "STAR WARS", I did not like it very much. In fact, I barely liked it at all. You must understand that I was rather young when the movie first hit theaters in 1977. I suspect that it blew my mind so much that I was inclined to reject it, instead of becoming a fan. This dislike did not extend to "THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK", when I first saw it. I was a little older and was able to appreciate what George Lucas was trying to do. And yet . . . I did not embrace this movie, as well. But I must admit that I found it difficult not to think about it. Han Solo’s fate and Darth Vader’s revelation had taken me by surprise and I found myself thinking about it all summer long. Ironically, "RETURN OF THE JEDI" became the first STAR WARS movie that I fully embraced. I say this with a great deal of irony, considering that it is now my least favorite movie in the franchise. During the late 1980s and the 1990s, I slowly became a major fan of all three films. And by the time I saw the first of the Prequel Trilogy movies, "THE PHANTOM MENACE", I had fully embraced the saga.

I realized that the Prequel Trilogy has been met with nothing but scorn and derision by many STAR WARS fans and the media. However, I have never shared their feelings. If anything, the Prequel Trilogy made me appreciate Lucas’ talents as a storyteller. It also made me realize that the producer had presented moviegoers with a very emotionally complex saga.

However, this article is not about my basic feelings regarding all six films in the franchise. This article is about my opinions on the morality and characterizations presented in the films. One of the things I have always enjoyed about the Prequel Trilogy and movies like "THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK" was Lucas’ revelations had pretty much revealed both the virtues and FLAWS of individuals. The characters in the Original Trilogy were flawed, but I do not believe their flaws had not been portrayed with as much depth as those characters in the Prequel Trilogy. And judging from the many articles, blogs and message boards I have read about STAR WARS, many fans seemed to dislike the less idealistic and more ambiguous portrayal of the PT's main characters.

The following article will focus upon the Jedi Order and some of its senior members. I hope to discuss some of their actions and how it affected the Galactic Republic in the Prequel Trilogy and their impact upon the character of Luke Skywalker and the Rebellion against the Galactic Empire in the Original Trilogy.

Thursday, December 19, 2024

"THE BOURNE SUPREMACY" (2004) Review

 














"THE BOURNE SUPREMACY" (2004) Review

I have read only one of three novels written by Robert Ludlum about the amnesiac spy and assassin, Jason Bourne. And it was the 1980 novel - the first one. It was pretty good novel, but it bore scant resemblance to Doug Liman's 2002 movie, "THE BOURNE IDENTITY".

I never saw "THE BOURNE IDENTITY" in the movie theaters. But I did see it on DVD and became an instant fan. It did lead me to see the 2004 sequel, "THE BOURNE SUPREMACY" in the theaters. I never read the 1986 novel from which the movie derived its title. It was just as well. This movie bore no resemblance, whatsoever, to Ludlum's second novel.

Set two years after the 2002 movie, "THE BOURNE SUPREMACY" began in Berlin, Germany; where a C.I.A. operation to obtain information on an Agency mole that stole $20 million dollars of allocation money. The operation was led by a C.I.A. Deputy Director named Pamela Landy. However, a Russian F.S.B. agent named Krill killed Landy's source and a field agent, stole the evidence and framed former operative Jason Bourne for the crime by planting a false fingerprint. Krill's benefactor, an oil magnate named Yuri Grelkov, ordered him to kill Bourne, who was living in Goa, India with his girlfriend, Marie Kreutz. Krill ended up killing Marie after a high-speed chase in Goa. And Bourne returned to Europe to exact revenge upon the C.I.A., believing they were responsible for Marie's death. At the same time, Bourne has been besieged by dreams and memories of an early assignment that led to his murder of two people in a hotel - an assignment that ended up having strong links to the botched operation in Berlin.

"THE BOURNE SUPREMACY" turned out to have the shortest running time in the entire movie franchise. Although it featured two chase sequences - one in Goa and the other in Moscow, it seemed less action-oriented than the other two films. If I must be honest, this BOURNE movie is noteworthy for two things, the death of Marie Kreutz and the introduction of C.I.A. director Pamela Landy. It has never received the same level of attention that the other movies have. And yet . . . it is my favorite one in the entire trilogy that features Matt Damon.

I have at least two problems with "THE BOURNE SUPREMACY". My first problem featured the character of Jarda, portrayed by actor Marton Csokas. During his confrontation with Bourne inside his Munich home, Jarda claimed that they were the only two Treadstone operatives still living. Originally, I thought Jarda was the same guy who had killed Alexander Conklin in "THE BOURNE IDENTITY" (portrayed by actor Russell Levy). But I learned that Conklin's killer was named Manheim. And according to the 2002 movie, there were only three other Treadstone operatives, aside from Bourne. Jarda was NOT one of them. Had screenwriter Tony Gilroy forgotten about Manheim? "THE BOURNE SUPREMACY" marked Paul Greengrass' debut as the director of a BOURNE. Doug Liman, who had directed the first film, served as one of the film's producers. It also marked the first appearance of the shaky-cam style filming that I have grown to dislike. Such style of filming is fine in a war movie or a documentary-style flick. But it almost made the chase sequences in Goa and especially in Moscow visually confusing.

Despite what I believe were flaws in the movies, I cannot deny that I love "THE BOURNE SUPREMACY". It may have been the least action-oriented film in the franchise, but I firmly believe that thanks to Tony Gilroy's writing, Paul Greengrass' direction and Matt Damon's performance; it was the most emotional film of the three. And it featured great character development for the Jason Bourne, Pamela Landy, Nicky Parsons and Ward Abbott characters. This movie, I believe, featured Matt Damon's finest moment in the entire trilogy and some of his best acting, period.

Ludlum's 1986 novel included a plot line that featured the character of Marie St. Jacques Webb being kidnapped to coerce David Webb into assuming the role of Jason Bourne again in order to deal with a deadly assassin. Gilroy was inspired by this plot line to create a story in which Bourne's past as an assassin would force him to atone for his crimes - especially the one crime that started his career for Treadstone. Marie's death at the hands of Krill forced Bourne to seek out the C.I.A. again. It also led to what I believe to be the best scene in the entire trilogy - Bourne's meeting with the young Russian girl, whose parents had been his first victims.

But there were other scenes that either took my breath away or strongly impressed me. They include Marie's death in Goa, the verbal confrontations between Pamela Landy and Ward Abbott, Bourne's fight with Jarda, Nicky Parson's terror-filled conversation with Bourne about his first assignment, Bourne's realization that he had been tricked into committing two unsanctioned murders by Conklin and Abbott, Abbott's final conversations with both Bourne and Landy, and the Bourne/Krill car chase in Moscow. Looking at this list, I realize that many of these scenes were dramatic, instead of action-oriented. And this does not bother me, because the level of drama and the performances made it all worthwhile.

I cannot talk about "THE BOURNE SURPEMACY" without discussing the cast. I have already expressed my delight at Matt Damon's acting in this film. He gave his usual, top-level performance. And as I had stated earlier, his scene with actress Oksana Akinshina, who portrayed the daughter of the Russian couple he had killed years earlier, was probably the best I had seen in the franchise. I found it intense, yet subtle and emotional.

Joan Allen made her first appearance as C.I.A. Deputy Director Pamela Lundy. I have a deep suspicion that her role was inspired by Judi Dench's tenure as "M" in the last six James Bond movies. Allen proved to be equally strong and commanding as Lundy, yet at the same time, managed to quietly express her character's insecurities in her scenes with Brian Cox's Ward Abbott. I must admit that I was not hat impressed by Cox in the first BOURNE movie. He seemed to be overshadowed by Chris Cooper's more showy portrayal of Alex Conklin. But he was in top form as the quiet and desperately manipulative Ward Abbott, who along with Yuri Grelkov, was responsible for the theft of the missing C.I.A. funds.

Like Cox, Julia Stiles' second appearance in a BOURNE movie proved to be a lot more impressive. Her character, Nicky Parsons, transformed from the shadowy Treadstone operative to a woman frightened at the idea of facing a murderous Jason Bourne. Her emotional scene with Damon's Bourne in Berlin proved to be one of the best in the movie. Franka Potente briefly returned as Bourne's doomed girlfriend, Marie Kreutz to give a first-rate performance in a scene that featured the character's attempt to keep Bourne's raging paranoia in check. Her death at the hands of Krill proved to be one of the most surprising moments I have encountered in a movie in years. For someone who spoke very few lines, Oksana Akinshina did an excellent job in her portrayal of the Neskis' daughter. That confession scene with Damon would have never worked without her spot-on response. Although I had seen Karl Urban in two "LORD OF THE RINGS" movies by 2004, his performance as the cold-blooded F.S.B. agent Krill, finally led me to take notice of him as an actor. Urban radiated more presence in this role than he did in Peter Jackson's movies. And he managed to achieve this with less lines. More importantly, his Krill proved to be a VERY effective nemesis for Bourne, despite being a lesser trained operative. And finally, the movie also featured a brief appearance by Tomas Arana in a sharp performance as the sardonic C.I.A. Director Marshall.

Yes, "THE BOURNE SUPREMACY" has its flaws. I cannot deny this. Just about every movie I have seen has flaws. I have also noticed that it has attracted less attention than most of the other BOURNE movies. Yet, thanks to Paul Greengrass' direction, Tony Gilroy's script and a superb cast led by Matt Damon; it is my second favorite film in the franchise.






Monday, December 16, 2024

VICTORIAN MELODRAMAS


The Suspicions of Mr. Whicher" Series (2011-2014)

The Cater Street Hangman" (1998)

The First Great Train Robbery" (1979)

"Gaslight" (1940)

"Gaslight" (1944)

"Blanche Fury" (1948)

"So Evil My Love" (1948)

"Temptation" (1946)

"Madeleine" (1950)

"Footsteps in the Fog" (1955)

"The Crimson Petal and the White" (2011)

"Fingersmith" (2005)

"Dickensian" (2015-2016)




Friday, December 13, 2024

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1933) Photo Gallery

 

























Below are images from "LITTLE WOMEN", the 1933 adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's 1868-69 novel. Directed by George Cukor, the Oscar nominated film starred Katherine Hepburn, Joan Bennett, Frances Dee, Jean Parker and Douglass Montgomery:




"LITTLE WOMEN" (1933) Photo Gallery
































































"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" (1980) Review

  "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" (1980) Review As many fans of Jane Austen must know, there have been several screen and television adaptat...