Friday, February 24, 2023

"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" (1971) Review

 












"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" (1971) Review

For some reason, I still find it hard to believe that until recently, very few people were aware that the first adaptation of Jane Austen's 1811 novel, "Sense and Sensibility", dated as far back as 1971. After all, people have been aware of other Austen adaptations during this same period or earlier. Even the Wikipedia site fails to mention it, except in connection with one of the cast members. What was about this four-part miniseries that eluded so many Austen fans?

In "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY", a wealthy landowner named Mr. Dashwood dies, leaving his two daughters and second wife at the mercy of his son by his first marriage, thanks to the rules of inheritance. When the son fails to financially help his sisters and stepmother, the trio are forced to live at a meager cottage, thanks to the generosity of Mrs. Dashwood's cousin. The miniseries follows the love lives of the sisters, while they deal with their new penniless status.

I could have went into greater detail about Elinor and Marianne Dashwood. But what would have been the point? Austen's novel and the other adaptations have made both their story and characters well known to fans. Everyone knows that the Dashwood sisters' penniless state have made them undesirable as potential mates among the English upper-class. And many know that Elinor Dashwood is the older and more sensible sister, who kept her emotions suppressed behind a facade of stoic behavior. They also know that Marianne is the younger sisters, whose romantic enthusiasm led to emotional excesses and irrational behavior. Was there something unique about this adaptation of Austen's novel? Hmmm. Other than it was probably the first version of the 1811 novel and the first of four versions to exclude the character of the youngest Dashwood sister, Margaret.

Overall, I believe that "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" turned out to be an entertaining and well-paced television miniseries. But it was not perfect. One, I felt that screenwriter Denis Constanduros made a few missteps in his adaptation. I wish that Constanduros had included a scene featuring John Dashwood's last conversation with his dying father. I felt that his eventually betrayal of his promise, due to his wife's capriciousness would have possessed more bite. I also felt that Constanduros could have included more scenes featuring Marianne and John Willoughy's courtship. The period between their first meeting and Willoughby's decision to end their romance seemed to go by in a flash. It happened too soon for me to understand Marianne's grief over his rejection of her. Although there were a good deal of exterior shots of the English countryside, I wish there had been more exterior shots of early 19th century London, during the sisters' trip. The London sequences made the miniseries feel more like a filmed play. And why on earth did Constanduros allowed Elinor to pay a visit to Edward Ferrars' London rooms alone? What was he thinking? He should have allowed Elinor to summon Edward to Mrs. Jennings' home in order to deliver Colonel Brandon's news about a new job. I have one last major problem. Why on earth did costume designer had Elinor and Marianne wearing identical traveling outfits? They were not twin sisters. And no siblings from an upper-class family - especially of the female gender - would be caught dead in this manner:

vlcsnap-23153

What was costumer designer Charles Knode thinking?

I also had some problems with the casting and performances. I had a real problem with actress Ciaran Madden's performance as Marianne Dashwood. How can I put it? It was over-the-top. I realize that she was at least 25 years old at the time this production was filmed. But did she and director David Giles really thought an exaggerated performance was necessary to portray the emotional 17-year-old Marianne? Was that their idea of portraying an emotional adolescent? And why would actor Michael Alderidge use a strong, regional accent for his portrayal of Sir John Middleton? I realize that his mother-in-law and wife came from a middle-class background. But Sir John and his cousin Mrs. Dashwood, did not. Both actresses who portrayed the Steele sisters - Frances Cuka and Maggie Jones - seemed at least a decade-and-a-half too old for their roles. And Kay Gallie's Fanny Dashwood seemed like such a major disappointment. Her Fanny struck me as too passive-aggressive and nervous in compared to the other actresses who portrayed the role.

But despite some disappointments, I must admit that "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" turned out to be a pretty good production. Hell, I like it a lot more than I do the 1981 television version. Thanks to Constanduros's script and Giles' direction, the four-part miniseries struck me as well paced - aside from Marianne and Willoughby's courtship. Aside from the traveling outfits, I must admit that I found Knode's costume designs both colorful and elegant. And like the 1995 movie, I was happy to see that the screenplay allowed Marianne to become aware of Colonel Brandon before her meeting with Willoughby . . . allowing the pair's eventual romance in the last episode very credible.

There were also some very good performances in "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY". I found myself surprisingly impressed by Richard Owens' performance as Colonel Brandon. At first, I barely paid attention to him. But I must admit that his performance actually grew on me and I thought he did a credible job of slowly revealing Brandon's passion for Marianne. Despite his strong regional accent, I must admit that Michael Aldridge was perfectly cast as Mrs. Dashwood's gregarious cousin, Sir John Middleton. And despite her age, Frances Cuka did a very good of conveying Lucy Steele's manipulations regarding Edward, Elinor and the Ferrars family . . . even if I found it a bit obvious. I was very impressed by Milton Johns' performance as Elinor and Marianne's spineless older half-brother John Dashwood. In fact, I feel that he gave one of the better performances in the miniseries. Robin Ellis gave a solid, yet charming performance as Edward Ferrars. However, I must admit that I was not that impressed by his screen chemistry with Joanna David's Elinor. In an ARTICLE I had written about Jane Austen's rogues, I had originally stated that I found Clive Francis' portrayal of the caddish John Willoughby unmemorable. I take it back. On a second viewing, I found myself surprisingly impressed by his performance. I think I may have been distracted by the so-called Regency wig he was wearing . . . or the speed of the Marianne-Willoughby courtship. But I thought Francis, who went on to co-star with Ellis in the "POLDARK" series a few years later, gave a very complex and satisfying performance.

But there were two performances in "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" that I found outstanding. One of them belonged to Joanna David, who was perfect - well . . . almost - as Elinor Dashwood. She was one of the few performers who managed to restrain from "playing to the second balcony" as many other stage-trained actors tend to do. Mind you, there were moments when she seemed incapable of projecting Elinor's passionate nature behind the sensible facade. But more than any other person in the cast, she did a superb job in carrying the miniseries on her shoulders. The other outstanding performance turned out to be Patricia Rutledge's portrayal of the vivacious Mrs. Jennings, Sir John's mother-in-law. She was in her early 40s at the time and technically, too young for the role. But I cannot deny that Rutledge seemed like the very personification of the verbose and interfering, yet warm-hearted widow. Of the four Mrs. Jennings I have seen, only Elizabeth Spriggs from the 1995 movie seemed her equal.

"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" is not the best adaptation of Jane Austen's 1811 novel, despite being the first. And it possessed certain aspects in both the script and casting that I found questionable. But thanks to David Giles' direction, Denis Constanduros' screenplay, and superb performances especially from Joanna David and Patricia Rutledge; I feel that it turned out to be a pretty damn good adaptation in the end. I would highly recommend it.

Wednesday, February 8, 2023

"GOLDFINGER" (1964) Photo Gallery

 goldfinger_1964_08_1800x1200


Below are images from "GOLDFINGER", the 1964 adaptation of Ian Fleming's 1959 James Bond novel. Directed by Guy Hamilton, the movie starred Sean Connery as James Bond:




"GOLDFINGER" (1964) Photo Gallery

618w_james_bond_in_pictures_2


1964 Goldfinger 02


1964-goldfinger-30-bond-vs-oddjob


Bond_1964_Goldfinger_3


e4f1d192067e93c5511cdd60d0f01c0d


gf_Goldfinger_1964_frame_20090912005754


GF-Harold-Sakata


goldfinger


GOLDFINGER6


goldfinger-1964-_144627-fli_1379323829


Goldfinger-1964-5


kinopoisk_ru-Goldfinger-921171


kinopoisk_ru-Goldfinger-921209


kinopoisk_ru-Goldfinger-1254314


kinopoisk_ru-Goldfinger-1254317


kinopoisk_ru-Goldfinger-1254318


kinopoisk_ru-Goldfinger-1254319


kinopoisk_ru-Goldfinger-1254328


kinopoisk_ru-Goldfinger-1254329


kinopoisk_ru-Goldfinger-1473097


kinopoisk_ru-Goldfinger-1473099


kinopoisk_ru-Goldfinger-1473104


kinopoisk_ru-Goldfinger-2019316


pussygalore

Sunday, February 5, 2023

"LOST" RETROSPECT (1.14) "Special"

 












"LOST" RETROSPECT: (1.14) "Special"

I just watched the Season One episode of "LOST" called (1.14) "Special". It reminded me of how the show runners had pretty much screwed over the Michael Dawson character.

Although I do not regard "Special" as one of the series' best episodes, let alone one of the best about Michael, watching it reminded me of the anger had I felt the show’s fans and their expectations and assumptions about him. One of the criticisms directed at Michael was his inability to be the perfect parent. Some critics actually claimed that Michael did not know how to be a parent. It occurred to me that it was a stupid comment to make. Worse, this comment was indicative of the fans' unrealistic expectations of Michael’s character.

Of course, Michael had no idea on how to be a parent. He was new at it, thanks to his ex-girlfriend, Susan Lloyd. Not only did she break up with Michael following Walt’s birth. She also decided that Michael would not play a role in Walt’s life as his father. Even before her death, she had expected her husband and Walt’s stepfather, Brian Porter, to be the one to raise him. One of the more frustrating aspects of the "LOST" fandom toward Michael is that many had expected him to be this one-dimensional character. He either had to be another castaway, loyal to the series’ leading characters; the perfect parent, despite having very little experience prior to being stranded on the island; or turn to the "Great White Hunter" aka John Locke for lessons on parenthood.

And what the fuck was up with John Locke? Teaching Walt how to use a machete … without Michael's permission? What the hell was he thinking, allowing a child to handle a dangerous weapon? And then there was that piece of advice he gave Michael - to treat Walt more like an adult than a child. What the fuck? Walt was ten years old, not fucking twenty-four years old. One, parents tend regard their off-springs as children even after they become adults. To a certain extent. And two, Walt was too young and too immature to be treated like an adult at the time.

What I found disturbing about this situation regarding the machete lesson is that when Michael had called Locke out for teaching Walt how to use a machete, the latter turned it on Michael and blamed him for not being the perfect father. This was bullshit. Teaching a ten year-old boy how to handle a machete without the permission of the latter's father? Treating said ten-year-old child like an adult? If Michael was expected to become a better parent because he had followed Locke’s advice, then "Special" gave the wrong kind of lesson in parenthood. And if I must be brutally honest, so did screenwriter David Fury. In the end, Walt’s encounter with a polar bear pretty much justified Locke’s decision to teach him to use a machete. It seemed as if Fury and the series’ show runners - Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof - believed Locke knew more about raising a child than Michael.

John Locke was not Dr. Spock. He was a man who had the wrong idea on what it really took to become a parent, based on his own damaged relationships with his parents. As for Michael, he was never a perfect parent. But he was never terrible. And despite his flaws, a great deal of his actions were dictated by his desire to protect Walt from the island’s dangers. His lack of perfection was not surprising since a "perfect parent" does not exist. Never really existed in the first place.

Human beings are not perfect. If humans are not perfect, why expect someone - whether in real life or in fiction - to be the perfect parent? Or perhaps many "LOST" fans had harbored such high demands from Michael because he was a black man and not the lead of a television show. Perhaps he was not expected to be as ambiguous and complicated as he proved to be.






"LOST" RETROSPECT: (1.23-1.25) "Exodus"

  "LOST" RETROSPECT: (1.23-1.25) "Exodus" If one was to ask me what was my favorite season finale of  "LOST" ,...