"CHARMED" RETROSPECT: (1.16) "Which Prue Is It Anyway?"

 

"CHARMED" RETROSPECT: (1.16) "Which Prue Is It Anyway?"

Most fans of "CHARMED" seemed to harbor the opinion that the series’ early seasons are much better than episodes that aired during the series’ last four years. After viewing Season One’s (1.16) "Which Prue Is It Anyway?", I can easily see how they managed to form that opinion. Mind you, I believe that this particular episode was not exactly the best of Season One. But it certainly seemed like a masterpiece in compare to most of the episodes from Seasons Four to Eight.

Penned by Javier Grillo-Marxuach, the episode began with Phoebe experiencing a premonition of Prue being stabbed to death by a man with a large sword. The Halliwell sisters discovered that their new enemy is a mortal named Gabriel Statler, a Lord of War. The sword renders Gabriel invulnerable to all mortal weapons and steals power and aggression from those he kills with it. Gabriel is after Prue because one of the family’s ancestors, a Warren witch named Brianna had bested him during the Crimean War back in the 1850s. To become fully empowered again, he needs the power of a first-born witch. Prue is specifically targeted, because he also wants revenge against the Warren family. To protect herself, Prue used a spell to multiply her strength by three. Instead, the spell created two clones of Prue. Hence . . . the title.

As much as I enjoyed "Which Prue Is It Anyway?", I had problems with it. One, I found the humor behind Prue and Piper’s discovery of Phoebe’s martial arts lessons tacky and slightly racist toward those of Asian descent. The episode also featured a bad moment for Phoebe to showcase her new martial arts skills – which only featured kicking and nothing else. During the sisters’ final encounter with Gabriel, Piper froze him so that Prue could kill him with his sword. Unfortunately, Phoebe chose that moment to kick Gabriel, causing Piper’s freeze upon Gabriel to end. Bad timing . . . eh? I am certain that Grillo-Marxuach had deliberately written the scene to unfold as it did. I just found it rather contrived.

Another problem I had turned out to be Gabriel’s motive for hunting Prue. As I had stated earlier, Gabriel wanted revenge against the Warren family line because one of the sisters’ ancestors – a great-great-something aunt named Briana – had managed to get the best of Gabriel during the Crimean War. The Warren family had been in America since the late 17th century. What was Briana Warren doing on the Crimea pennisula (which was under the Russian Empire in 1854-56) during that period in the first place? Also, Gabriel went after Prue, because the latter was the oldest sister . . . and the most powerful. Frankly, I found Gabriel’s reasoning rather limited. He could have acquired a lot more power if he had hunted all three sisters . . . one at a time.

But my main problem with "Which Prue Is It Anyway?" centered around the main villain, Gabriel Statler. Mind you, Alex McArthur portrayed the character with great relish. The problem with Gabriel rested upon his characterization as a Lord of War and his motivation for going after Prue. According to the episode, Gabriel and his sister Helena were members of the Lords of War, a clan of supernatural warriors dedicated to war. The Lords of War were also mortals who had started most of Earth’s wars throughout history. Why? Who knows? But this description of the Lords of War illustrated a major irritation for me – humans’ tendency to use fantasy or science-fiction as an excuse to distance ourselves from our flaws or fuck-ups. In the case of "Which Prue Is It Anyway?", humanity’s responsibility for its penchant for aggression is blamed on supernatural beings. Even worse, Grillo-Marxuach had never explained why the Lords of War even bothered to start wars. Perhaps the audience was simply expected to believe that Gabriel and his kind want to start chaos because they were evil. This seemed like storytelling for eight year-olds and I never bought it.

Despite its flaws, "Which Prue Is It Anyway?" turned out to be a pretty damn good story. One of the consequences that resulted from Gabriel’s witch hunt resulted in the creation of the two Prue clones. This situation provided comedic gold for the episode. As stated earlier, Prue had cast a spell to triple her power and ended up inadvertently creating two clones of herself – a perky Prue (Pink Sweater) who possessed an overbearing manner masked by a cheerful demeanor; and a sensuous Prue (Blue Sweater) with an intense penchant for male attention. Both Prue clones provided some hilarious moments – especially with Pink Prue. But the two clones also provided moments of poignancy when the real Prue was forced to feel the pain that each clone experienced while being stabbed by Gabriel’s sword. The expression in Andy Trudeau’s eyes spoke a thousand words when the good police inspector discovered Pink Prue’s body in the city morgue.

I certainly found no fault in the performances featured in this episode. Holly Marie Combs and Alyssa Milano gave solid and humorous support as their characters (Piper and Phoebe Halliwell) dealt with Prue’s alter egos. Ted King (a great favorite of mine) did an excellent job of conveying Andy’s grief over the death of Pink Prue and his suspicions that something was amiss with the Halliwells later in the episode. It was nice to see Bernie Kopell ("GET SMART" and "THE LOVE BOAT") as the city morgue’s sarcastic coroner. Both Alex McArthur and Shannon Sturges gave first-class performances as the evil Statler siblings – Gabriel and Helena. I also have to give them kudos for hinting an incestuous relationship between brother and sister without being too obvious. Apparently, they had failed to be a little more subtle for even Blue Prue managed to pick up on their incestuous vibe:

"And Gabriel has this weird binding passion for Helena. So, if we grab her we can use her as leverage. A sword for his sister."

I also have to compliment McArthur for his exuberant portrayal of Gabriel. I may have found the character’s background as a Lord of War rather puerile, but I cannot help but admire the energy that McArthur infused into the role.

One could not discuss "Which Prue Is It Anyway?" without mentioning the woman of the hour – Shannen Doherty. Watching her in action reminded me of how much "CHARMED" had benefitted from the actress’ presence during the series’ first three seasons. I would not call Doherty’s performance in this episode as her masterpiece, but I would certainly view it as one of her better performances during her three-year stint on "CHARMED". In "Which Prue Is It Anyway?", Doherty managed to portray three facets of Prue Halliwell. Not only did she portray Prue in all her complicated glory, she also had the opportunity to portray extreme aspects of Prue’s personality. In Doherty’s portrayal of Pink Prue, she revealed the domineering and perfectionist traits of the oldest Charmed One that must have been the bane Piper and Phoebe’s lives . . . and irritated Original Prue to no end. Doherty also got the chance to reveal Pink Prue’s traits with a humorous perkiness rarely shown in Original Prue. With Blue Prue, Doherty allowed her character’s sensuality to be unleashed with comic results at Quake – the restaurant where Piper worked during Season One. Considering how Doherty managed to nab these different nuances of Prue, it was not surprising to learn that she had earned two Saturn Awards for her portrayal of Prue.

I am almost inclined to rate "Which Prue Is It Anyway?" as one of Season One’s best episodes. But due to the episode’s limited approach to Gabriel Statler’s villainous goals and the unsatisfying and one-dimensional description of his background as a Lord of War, I cannot give it that much credit. However, writer Javier Grillo-Marxuach did pen a well-paced episode filled with humor and pathos. The first-rate cast did his script justice with a solid cast that included an exuberant performance by guest star Alex McArthur and exceptional work by star Shannen Doherty.

R.I.P. Shannen Doherty (1971-2024)

"GEORGE WASHINGTON" (1984) Review

 

"GEORGE WASHINGTON" (1984) Review

Twenty-four years before the award-winning HBO miniseries "JOHN ADAMS" aired, the CBS network aired a miniseries about the first U.S. President, George Washington. Simply titled "GEORGE WASHINGTON", this three-part miniseries was based upon two biographies written by James Thomas Flexner - 1965's "George Washington, the Forge of Experience, 1732–1775" and 1968's "George Washington in the American Revolution, 1775–1783".

"GEORGE WASHINGTON" spanned at least forty years in the life of the first president - from 1743, when his father Augustine Washington died from a sudden illness; to 1783, when Washington bid good-bye to the officers who had served under him during the American Revolutionary War. The miniseries covered some of the major events of Washington's life:

*His training and profession as a surveyor of Western lands
*His experiences as an officer of the Virginia militia during the Seven Years War
*His friendship with neighbors George William and Sally Cary Fairfax between the 1750s and the 1770s
*The romantic feelings between him and Sally Fairfax
*His marriage to widow Martha Dandridge Custis and his role as stepfather to her two children
*His life as a Virginia planter
*His role as a member of Virginia's House of Burgesses
*His growing disenchantment with the British Parliament
*His brief experiences as a representative of the Second Continental Congress
*And his experiences as Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army

Actually, one half of the miniseries covered Washington's life from his childhood to his years as a Virginia planter. The other half covered his experiences during the American Revolution. Glancing at the list above, I realized that "GEORGE WASHINGTON" covered a great deal in Washington's life. More importantly, Jon Boothe and Richard Fielder did a first-rate job by delving into the many aspects of the man's life and his relationships with great details and depth. This was especially apparent in Washington's relationships with his controlling mother, Mary Ball Washington; his friendship with George William Fairfax; his light romance with Sally Fairfax; his relationships with his military aides during the American Revolution and especially his marriage to Martha Custis.

I found it interesting that the miniseries managed to convey how difficult and controlling Mary Washington was as a parent. However, I found it slightly disappointing that the miniseries did not further explore Washington's relationship with his mother, once he became swept up into the Seven Year's War - especially since she had survived long enough to witness him become the first U.S. president.

Washington's relationship with George William "Will" Fairfax proved to be a complex matter for two reasons. One, Will Fairfax had remained loyal to the British Crown throughout his life. During the decade leading to the outbreak of the American Revolution, that relationship threatened to fall apart due to the two friends' different political belief - something I was happy to see that the miniseries had conveyed. Another aspect that posed a threat to Washington's friendship with Fairfax was his romantic feelings for the man's wife, Sally Fairfax . . . and her feelings for him. There have been rumors that Washington's relationship with Sally had led to physical adultery, but no proof. But there is proof that they had strong feelings for one another and the miniseries; due to Fiedler and Boothe's screenplay, along with the performances of Barry Bostwick and Jaclyn Smith; did an excellent job of conveying the pair's emotional regard for each other in a subtle and elegant manner. What I found even more amazing was the miniseries' portrayal of Washington's courtship of and his marriage to Martha Custis. I was surprised that Boothe and Fiedler had portrayed Washington's feelings toward her with such ambiguity. This left me wondering if he had married her for love . . . or for her fortune. By the last half hour or so of the miniseries, Washington finally admitted to Martha that he did love her. However, the manner in which Bostwick portrayed that scene, I found myself wondering if Washington was himself amazed by how much his feelings for Martha had grown.

I do not know what to say about the miniseries' portrayal of Washington's relationships with his military aides during the American Revolution. I do not doubt that his aides were loyal to him or probably even worship him. But I must admit that it seemed the miniseries' portrayal of this relationship seemed to make Washington's character just a touch too ideal for my tastes. In fact, one of the miniseries' main problems seemed to be its idealistic portrayal of the main character. Aside from Washington's bouts of quick temper, his ambiguous affections for his wife Martha, and his cold relationship with his less than ideal stepson, John "Jacky" Parke Custis; the miniseries made very little effort to portray Washington in any negative light. In fact, Washington's demand for higher rank within the Virginia militia and British Army during the Seven Years War is portrayed as justified, thanks to Fiedler and Boothe's screenplay. Personally, I found his demand rather arrogant, considering his young age (early to mid-20s) and limited training and experience as a military officer at the time. Not only did I find his demand arrogant, but also rather astounding. What I found even more astounding was the miniseries' attitude that television viewers were supposed to automatically sympathize with Washington's demands.

The miniseries' portrayal of Washington in the second half - the period that covered the American Revolution - nearly portrayed the planter-turned-commander as a demigod. Honestly. Aside from his occasional bursts of temper, General George Washington of the Continental Army - at least in this miniseries - was a man who could do no wrong. And at times, I found this rather boring. I cannot recall any moment during the miniseries' second half that questioned Washington's decisions or behavior. Most of his military failures were blamed on either military rivals or limited support from the Continental Congress.

And then . . . there was the matter of black soldiers serving in the Continental Army. According to "GEORGE WASHINGTON", Southern representative in Congress wanted blacks - whether they were former slaves or freemen - banned from serving in the army. It was Washington who demanded that Congress allow black men to fight alongside white men in the country's rebellion against the British Empire. By the way . . . this was a complete lie. Despite black men fighting in the Massachusetts militias during the Battles at Lexington and Concord and the Battle of Bunker Hill, Washington signed an order forbidding them to become part of the Continental Army when the white New England militiamen did. Come to think of it, when it came to racism and slavery, "GEORGE WASHINGTON" presented a completely whitewashed portrait of the future president. The miniseries even featured a pre-war scene in which Washington prevented his overseer from breaking apart slave families at Mount Vernon by selling some of the slaves for needed funds for the plantation. In reality, Washington was not above selling off slaves or breaking up families for the sake of profit or punishing a slave. At a time when historians and many factions of the American public were willing to view the Founding Fathers in a more ambiguous light; Fiedler and co-producers Buzz Kulik and David Gerber lacked the guts to portray Washington with a bit more honestly . . . especially in regard to race and slavery. If they had been more honest, they could have portrayed Washington's growing unease over slavery and race, following Congress' decision to allow them within the ranks of the Continental Army in 1777. Unfortunately, putting Washington on a pedestal seemed more important than allowing him some semblance of character development.

Production wise, "GEORGE WASHINGTON" struck me as first-rate. The miniseries had been shot in locales in Virginia and Southern Pennsylvania, adding to the production's 18th century Colonial America atmosphere. I cannot say whether Harry Stradling Jr.'s cinematography also contributed to the miniseries' setting. If I must be honest, I did not find his photography that memorable. But I was impressed by Alfred Sweeney's production designs, along with Sig Tingloff's art direction and Arthur Jeph Parker's set decorations. However, I had a problem with the costume choices selected by a costume team supervised by Michael W. Hoffman. To be honest, I did not have much trouble with the costumes for the men. The women's costumes proved to be another man. A good deal of the story is set among the colonial Virginia gentry. I hate to say this, but I found a good deal of the women's costumes less than impressive. They looked as if they came straight from a costume warehouse in the middle of Hollywood. I especially had a problem with Jaclyn Smith's wardrobe as Sally Fairfax. I realize that she is supposed to be an 18th century version of a Southern belle. But there were one or two costumes that seemed to be some confusing mixture of mid 18th and mid 19th centuries. Yikes.

I certainly had no problem with the performances featured in the 1984 miniseries. The latter featured solid performances from legendary actors like Lloyd Bridges, Jose Ferrer, Trevor Howard, Jeremy Kemp, Clive Revill, Anthony Zerbe, Robert Stack and Hal Holbrook. However, I really enjoyed James Mason's energetic portrayal of the doomed General Edward Braddock; Rosemary Murphy's skillful performance as the future president's demanding mother, Mary Ball Washington; Richard Kiley's emotional portrayal of Washington's neighbor, planter George Mason; and John Glover's ambiguous performance as the ambitious Revolutionary officer, Charles Lee. I was also impressed by Stephen Macht's performance as the ambitious and volatile Benedict Arnold. I could also say the same about Megan Gallagher's portrayal of Arnold's wife, Peggy Shippen. Ron Canada provided a good deal of depth in his limited appearances as Washington's slave valet, Billy Lee. Philip Casnoff, who was a year away from his stint in the "NORTH AND SOUTH" miniseries, gave a very charming and humorous performance as Washington's French-born aide and close friend, the Marquis de Lafayette. And Leo Burmester gave an excellent performance as Eban Krutch, the New England born Continental soldier, who served as the viewers' eyes of both Washington and the war throughout the miniseries' second half.

I really enjoyed David Dukes' performance as Washington's neighbor, mentor and close friend, Will Fairfax. I found it quite energetic and charming. And he managed to develop a first-rate chemistry with Barry Bostwick. Come to think of it, so did Jaclyn Smith, who portrayed Fairfax's wife and the object of Washington's desire, Sally Fairfax. I also found Smith's performance rather complex as she had to convey her character's feelings for Washington in a subtle manner. At first, I found Patty Duke's portrayal of the future First Lady, Martha Washington, solid but not particularly interesting. Thankfully, the last quarter of the miniseries allowed Duke to prove what a first-rate actress she could be, as it explored Mrs. Washington's reaction to the privations suffered by the Continental Army's rank-and-file. Her performance led to an Emmy nomination. And finally, I come to the man of the hour himself, Barry Bostwick. Despite the miniseries being guilty of whitewashing some of Washington's character, I cannot deny that Bostwick gave a superb performance. The actor skillfully conveyed Washington's character from the callow youth who was dominated by his mother and his ambition to the weary, yet iconic military general who carried the rebellion and the birth of a country on his shoulders. It is a pity that he did not receive any award nominations for his performance.

I may have my complaints about "GEORGE WASHINGTON". Despite its detailed account of the first president's life, I believe it went out of its way to protect his reputation with occasional whitewashing. And some of the miniseries' production values - namely the women's costumes - struck me as a bit underwhelming. But despite its flaws, "GEORGE WASHINGTON" proved to be a first-rate miniseries that delved into the history of the United States during the mid-and-late 18th century, via the life of one man. It also benefited from excellent direction from Buzz Kulik and superb performances led by the talented Barry Bostwick. Not surprisingly, the miniseries managed to earn at least six Emmy nominations.

Ranking of "THE GILDED AGE" Season Two (2023) Episodes

"Close Enough to Touch" (2.05)

"Head to Head" (2.03)

"You Don't Even Like Opera" (2.01)

"In Terms of Winning and Losing" (2.08)

"Wonders Never Cease" (2.07)

"His Grace the Duke" (2.04)

"Warning Shots" (2.06)

"Some Sort of Trick" (2.02)

"GODS AND GENERALS" (2003) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "GODS AND GENERALS", the 2003 prequel to the 1993 movie, "GETTYSBURG".  Based upon  Jeff Shaara's 1996 novel; and written and directed by Ronald Maxwell, the movie starred Stephen Lang, Jeff Daniels and Robert Duvall:

"GODS AND GENERALS" (2003) Photo Gallery

"MAD MEN" RETROSPECT: (1.07) "Red in the Face"

 

"MAD MEN" RETROSPECT: (1.07) "Red in the Face"

Due to some sense of nostalgia, I decided to break out my "MAD MEN" Season One DVD set and watch an episode. The episode in question turned out to be the seventh one, (1.07) "Red in the Face".

After watching "Red in the Face", it occurred to me that its main theme centered around some of the main characters' childish behavior. I say "some of the characters", because only a few managed to refrain from such behavior - Sterling Cooper's co-owner Bert Cooper; Office Manager Joan Holloway; and Helen Bishop, a divorcée that happens to be a neighbor of the Drapers. I do not recall Cooper behaving childishly during the series' last four seasons. Helen Bishop merely reacted as any neighbor would when faced with a situation regarding her nine year-old son and a neighbor. As for Joan, she had displayed her own brand of childishness (of the vindictive nature) in episodes before and after "Red in the Face". But in this episode, she managed to refrain herself.

I cannot deny that I found this episode entertaining. And I believe it was mainly due John Slattery's performance as Roger Sterling, Sterling-Cooper's other owner. In scene after scene, Slattery conveyed Roger's penchant for childishness - proposing an illicit weekend to Joan, resentment toward the female attention that Don Draper managed to attract at a Manhattan bar, making snipes at the younger man's background during an impromptu dinner with the Drapers, making sexual advances at Betty Draper, and gorging on a very unhealthy lunch. That is a lot for one episode. Roger's behavior served to convey a middle-aged man stuck in personal stagnation. Even worse, he has remained in this situation up to the latest season. And Slattery managed to convey these tragic aspects of Roger's character with his usual fine skills.

Jon Hamm fared just as well with another first-rate performance as the series' protagonist, Don Draper. In "Red in the Face", Hamm revealed Don's immature and bullying nature behind his usual smooth, charismatic and secretive personality. This was especially apparent in a scene that Hamm shared with January Jones, in which Don accused his wife Betty of flirting with Roger. And Don's less admirable nature was also apparent in the joke that he pulled on Roger in the episode's final scenes. Speaking of Betty, January Jones also did a top-notch job in those scenes with Hamm. She also gave an excellent performance in Betty's confrontation with Don, following the dinner with Roger; and her conversation with neighbor Francine about her desire to attract attention. I have noticed that most of the series' fans seemed to regard Betty as a child in a woman's body. Granted, Betty had her childish moments in the episode - especially during her confrontation with neighbor Helen Bishop at a local grocery store. But I have always harbored the opinion that she is no more or less childish than the other main characters. This episode seemed to prove it. One last performance that stood out came from Vincent Kartheiser as the young Accounts executive Pete Campbell. To this day, I do not understand why he is the only major cast member who has never received an acting nomination for an Emmy or Golden Globe. Because Kartheiser does such a terrific job as the ambiguous Pete. His complexity seemed apparent in "Red in the Face". In one scene, he tried to exchange a rather ugly wedding gift for something more dear to his heart - a rifle. His attempt to exchange the gift seemed to feature Pete as his most childish. Yet, he also seemed to be the only Sterling Cooper executive who understood the advertising value of John F. Kennedy's youthful persona during the 1960 Presidential election.

Earlier, I had commented on how screenwriter Bridget Bedard's use of childish behavior by some of the main characters as a major theme for "Red in the Face". I have noticed that once this behavior is apparent; Roger, Don, Betty and Pete are left humiliated or "red in the face" after being exposed. Betty's decision to give a lock of hair to Helen Bishop's nine year-old son in (1.04) "New Amsterdam" led to a confrontation between the two women at a grocery store and a slap delivered by Betty after being humiliated by Helen. If I had been Betty, I would have admitted that giving young Glen a lock of her hair was a mistake, before pointing out Glen's habit of entering a private bathroom already in use. And Pete's decision to trade the ugly-looking chip-and-dip for a rifle led to being berated over the telephone by his new wife, Trudy. Only a conversation with Peggy Olson, Don's secretary, about his fantasies as a hunter could alleviate his humiliation. During the Drapers' dinner party with Roger, the latter noted that Don's habit of slipping his "Gs" indicated a rural upbringing - a revelation that left Don feeling slightly humiliated. And after accusing Betty of flirting with Roger, she retaliated with a snide comment about his masculinity. Don tried to retaliate by calling her a child, but Betty's stoic lack of response only fed his humiliation even more. However, he did get even with Roger by setting up the latter with a cruel practical joke that involved a falsely inoperative elevator and a heavy lunch that included oysters and cheesecake. Although the joke left Don feeling smug and vindicated, I was left more convinced than ever of his penchant for childish behavior. Aside from feeling humiliated by a pair of young females' attention toward Don, Roger managed to coast through most of the episode without paying a price for his behavior. In the end, he suffered the biggest humiliation via his reaction to Don's joke - by vomiting in front of prospective clients.

"Red in the Face" featured many scenes that I found entertaining - especially the impromptu dinner party given by the Drapers for Roger Sterling. But if I must be honest, I did not find it particularly impressive. Although "Red in the Face" offered viewers a negative aspects of four of the main characters, I do not believe it did nothing to advance any of the stories that began at the beginning of the season. I must also add that Betty's confrontation with Helen Bishop seemed out of place in this episode. While watching it, I had the distinct impression that this scene, along with Betty and Francine's conversation, should have been added near the end of "New Amsterdam". By including it in "Red in the Face", it almost seemed out of place.

I could never regard "Red in the Face" as one of the best episodes of Season One or the series. But I cannot deny that thanks to performances by John Slattery, Jon Hamm, January Jones and Vincent Kartheiser, I found it entertaining.