"VANITY FAIR" (2004) Review

 

"VANITY FAIR" (2004) Review

William Makepeace Thackery's 1848 novel about the life and travails of an ambitious young woman in early 19th century has generated many film and television adaptations. One of them turned out to be the 2004 movie that was directed by Mira Nair. 

"VANITY FAIR" covers the early adulthood of one Becky Sharp, the pretty and ambitious daughter of an English not-so-successful painter and a French dancer during the early years from 1802 to 1830. The movie covers Becky’s life during her impoverished childhood with her painter father, during her last day as a student at Miss Pinkerton’s Academy for Young Ladies, where she meets her only friend Amelia Sedley – the only daughter of a slightly wealthy gentleman and her years as a governess for the daughters of a crude, yet genial baronet named Sir Pitt Crawley. While working for the Crawleys, Becky meets and falls in love with Sir Pitt’s younger son, Captain Rawdon Crawley. When Sir Pitt proposes marriage to Becky, she shocks the family with news of her secret marriage to Rawdon. The couple is ostracized and ends up living in London on Rawdon’s military pay and gambling winnings. They also become reacquainted with Amelia Sedley, who has her own problems. When her father loses his fortune, the father of her beau, George Osborne, tries to arrange a marriage between him and a Jamaican heiress. Leery of the idea of marrying a woman of mixed blood, he marries Amelia behind Mr. Obsorne's back, and the latter disinherits him. Not long after George and Amelia's marriage, word reaches Britain of Napoleon's escape from Elba and control of France. Becky and Amelia follow Rawdon, George, and Dobbin, who are suddenly deployed to Brussels as part of the Duke of Wellington's army. And life for Becky and those close to her prove to be even more difficult.

The first thing I noticed about "VANITY FAIR" was that it was one of the most beautiful looking movies I have ever seen in recent years. Beautiful and colorful. A part of me wonders if director Mira Nair was responsible for the movie's overall look. Some people might complain and describe the movie's look as garish. I would be the first to disagree. Despite its color - dominated by a rich and deep red that has always appealed to me - "VANITY FAIR" has also struck me as rather elegant looking film, thanks to cinematographer Declan Quinn. But he was not the only one responsible for the film's visual look. Maria Djurkovic's production designs and the work from the art direction team - Nick Palmer, Sam Stokes and Lucinda Thomson. All did an excellent job of not only creating what I believe to be one of the most colorful and elegant films I have ever seen, but also in re-creating early 19th century Britain, Belgium, Germany and India. But I do have a special place in my heart for Beatrix Aruna Pasztor's costume designs. I found them absolutely ravishing. Colorful . . . gorgeous. I am aware that many did not find them historically accurate. Pasztor put a bit more Hollywood into her designs than history. But I simply do not care. I love them. And to express this love, the following is a brief sample of her costumes worn by actress Reese Witherspoon:

  

I understand that Witherspoon was pregnant at the time and Pasztor had to accommodate the actress' pregnancy for her costumes. Judging from what I saw on the screen, I am beginning to believe that Witherspoon's pregnancy served her role in the story just fine.

Now that I have raved over the movie's visual look and style, I might as well talk about the movie's adaptation. When I first heard about "VANITY FAIR", the word-of-mouth on the Web seemed to be pretty negative. Thackery's novel is a long one - written in twenty parts. Naturally, a movie with a running time of 141 minutes was not about to cover everything in the story. And I have never been one of those purists who believe that a movie or television adaptation had to be completely faithful to its source. Quite frankly, it is impossible for any movie or television miniseries to achieve. And so, it was not that surprising that the screenplay written by Julian Fellowes, Matthew Faulk and Mark Skeet would not prove to be an accurate adaptation. I expected that. However, there were some changes I could have done without.

Becky Sharp has always been one of the most intriguing female characters in literary history. Among the traits that have made her fascinating were her ambitions, amorality, talent for manipulation and sharp tongue. As much as I enjoyed Reese Witherspoon's performance in the movie - and I really did - I thought it was a mistake for Fellowes, Faulk and Skeet to make Becky a more "likeable" personality in the movie's first half. One, it took a little bite not only out of the character, but from the story's satirical style, as well. And two, I found this change unnecessary, considering that literary fans have always liked the darker Becky anyway. Thankfully, this vanilla-style Becky Sharp disappeared in the movie's second half, as the three screenwriters returned to Thackery's sharper and darker portrayal of the character. I was also a little disappointed with the movie's sequence featuring Becky's stay at the Sedley home and her seduction of Amelia's older brother, Jos. I realize that as a movie adaptation,"VANITY FAIR" was not bound to be completely accurate as a story. But I was rather disappointed with the sequence featuring Becky's visit to the Sedley home at Russell Square in London. Perhaps it was just me, but I found that particular sequence somewhat rushed. I was also disappointed by Nair and producer Jannette Day's decision to delete the scene featuring Becky's final meeting with her estranged son, Rawdy Crawley. This is not out of some desire to see Robert Pattinson on the screen. Considering that the movie's second half did not hesitate to reveal Becky's lack of warmth toward her son, I felt that this last scene could have remained before she departed Europe for India with Jos.

Despite my complaints and the negative view of the movie by moviegoers that demanded complete accuracy, I still enjoyed "VANITY FAIR" very much. Although I was a little disappointed in the movie's lighter portrayal of Becky Sharp, I did enjoy some of the other changes. I had no problem with the addition of a scene from Becky's childhood in which she first meets Lord Steyne. I felt that this scene served as a strong and plausible omen of her future relationship with the aristocrat. Unlike others, I had no problems with Becky's fate in the end of the movie. I have always liked the character, regardless of her amoral personality. And for once, it was nice to see her have some kind of happy ending - even with the likes of the lovesick Jos Sedley. Otherwise, I felt that "VANITY FAIR" covered a good deal of Thackery's novel with a sense of humor and flair.

I have always found it odd that most people seemed taken aback by an American in a British role more so than a Briton in an American role. After all, it really depends upon the individual actor or actress on whether he or she can handle a different accent. In the case of Reese Witherspoon, she used a passable British accent, even if it was not completely authentic. More importantly, not only did she give an excellent performance, despite the writers' changes in Becky's character, she was also excellent in the movie's second half, which revealed Becky's darker nature.

Witherspoon was ably assisted with a first-rate cast. The movie featured fine performances from the likes of James Purefoy, Deborah Findley, Tony Maudsley, Geraldine McEwan, Eileen Atkins, Douglas Hodge, Natasha Little (who portrayed Becky Sharp in the 1998 television adaptation of the novel), and especially Romola Garai and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers as Amelia Sedley and George Osborne. But I was especially impressed by a handful of performances that belonged to Bob Hoskins, Rhys Ifans and Gabriel Byrne. Bob Hoskins was a delight as the slightly crude and lovesick Sir Pitt Crawley. Rhys Ifans gave one of his most subtle performances as the upright and slightly self-righteous William Dobbins, who harbored a unrequited love for Amelia. Jim Broadbent gave an intense performance as George's ambitious and grasping father. And Gabriel Byrne was both subtle and cruel as the lustful and self-indulgent Marquis of Steyne.

In the end, I have to say that I cannot share the negative opinions of "VANITY FAIR". I realize that it is not a "pure" adaptation of William Makepeace Thackery's novel or that it is perfect. But honestly, I do not care. Despite its flaws, "VANITY FAIR" proved to be a very entertaining movie for me. And I would have no problem watching it as much as possible in the future.

"VANITY FAIR" (2004) Photo Gallery

 

Below is a gallery featuring photos from the 2004 version of William Makepeace Thackeray's epic novel, "VANITY FAIR". Directed by Mira Nair, the movie starred Reese Witherspoon:

"VANITY FAIR" (2004) Photo Gallery

"PERSUASION" (1971) Review

 

"PERSUASION" (1971) Review

This adaptation of Jane Austen’s 1818 novel turned out to be the first of the old Jane Austen television adaptations that the BBC aired during the 1970s and 80s. Produced and directed by Howard Baker, and adapted by Julian Mitchell; this two-part miniseries starred Ann Firbanks and Bryan Marshall.

As many fans of Austen’s novel would know, ”PERSUASION” told the story of Anne Elliot, the middle daughter of a vain and spendthrift baronet, who finds herself reunited with her former finance, a Naval officer of lesser birth named Frederick Wentworth. Eight years before the beginning of the story, Anne’s godmother, Lady Russell, had persuaded her to reject Wentworth’s marriage proposal, citing the Naval officer’s lack of family connections and fortune. She reunites with Wentworth, during a prolonged family visit to her younger sister and brother-in-law, Mary and Charles Musgrove. And the Naval officer has managed to acquire a fortune during the Napoleonic Wars. Anne is forced to watch Wentworth woo Mary’s sister-in-law, Louisa Musgrove, while he ignores his earlier attraction to her.

Many diehard Austen fans have expressed the opinion that this adaptation of her last novel has a running time that allows for the characters to be expressed with more depth than they were in the 1995 and 2007 versions. I must admit that the miniseries’ running time of 210 minutes allowed a greater depth into Austen’s plot than the two later movies. Yet, despite the longer running time, ”PERSUASION” managed to be only a little more faithful than the other two versions. One of the plotlines that Mitchell failed to include featured the injury suffered by one of Charles Musgrove’s sons, following a fall from the tree. It was this injury that delayed Anne’s reunion with Wentworth near the beginning of the story. Fortunately, the changes or deletions that Mitchell made in his script did not bother me one whit. Especially since ”PERSUASION” turned out to be a pretty solid adaptation.

However, there were times when Mitchell was too faithful to Austen’s novel. I still have nightmares over the second scene between Anne and her old school friend, Mrs. Smith; in which the latter finally revealed the true nature of Anne’s cousin, William Elliot. That particular scene seemed to take forever. And I never understood Anne’s outrage over William’s comments about Sir Walter and Elizabeth in his old letters to Mrs. Smith's husband. He had only expressed what Anne also felt about her father and older sister. And once again, an adaptation of ”Persuasion” failed to correct the problem surrounding the William Elliot character – namely his attempt to woo and marry Anne in order to prevent Sir Walter from marry Elizabeth’s companion, Mrs. Clay, or any other women . . . and guarantee his inheritance of the Elliot baronetcy. As I had stated in my reviews of the two other ”PERSUASION” movies, William’s efforts struck me as irreverent, since there was no way he could have full control over Sir Walter’s love life. Why was it necessary to show William sneaking away with Mrs. Clay in order to elope with her? Both were grown adults who had been previously married. They were not married or engaged to anyone else. I found their clandestine behavior unnecessary. And why on earth did Mitchell include Sir Walter spouting the names and birthdates of himself and his offspring in the script’s opening scene? I do not think so. In fact, this scene merely dragged the miniseries from the outset.

The production values for ”PERSUASION” struck me as top-rate . . . to a certain extent. I have to commend Peter Phillips for his colorful production designs and Mark Hall for the miniseries’ art work. ”PERSUASION” permeated with rich colors that I found eye catching. However, I have some qualms about Esther Dean’s costumes designs. How can I put it? I found some of the costumes rather garish. And the photography for the exterior scenes struck me as . . . hmmm, unimpressive. Dull. Flat. And I had some problems with the hairstyle for the leading lady, Ann Firbank. Her hairdo seemed like a uneasy mixture of an attempt at a Regency hairstyle and an early 1970s beehive. Think I am kidding? Take a gander:



My opinion of the cast is pretty mixed. There were performances that I found impressive. Morag Hood gave a very skillful and entertaining performance as Anne Elliot's vain and emotionally needy younger sister, Mary Elliot Musgrove. Marian Spencer gave a complex, yet intelligent portrayal of Anne Elliot’s godmother and mentor, Lady Russell. I was also impressed by Valerie Gearon’s subtle performance as Anne’s vain older sister, Elizabeth Elliot. And both Richard Vernon and Rowland Davies gave colorful performances as Admiral Croft and Charles Musgrove, respectively. On the other hand, Basil Dignam got on my last nerve as the vain Sir Walter Elliot. There was nothing really wrong with his performance, but many of his scenes dragged the miniseries, due to the number of unnecessary dialogue over topics that had very little to do with the main storyline. Quite frankly, a great deal of Sir Walter's dialogue bore me senseless.

And what about the story’s two leads? Ann Firbank and Bryan Marshall gave very competent performances as the two former lovers, Anne Elliot and Frederick Wentworth. They competently expressed their characters’ intelligence and emotions. They also made the eventual reconciliation between Anne and Wentworth very believable. Unfortunately, Firbank and Marshall lacked the strong chemistry that Amanda Root and Ciarán Hinds possessed in the 1995 adaptation; or the strong chemistry that Sally Hawkins and Rupert Penry-Jones had in the 2007 film - at least until the story shifted to Lyme Regis. I never got the feeling that Firbank’s Anne and Marshall’s Wentworth were struggling to contain their emotions toward each other in the first half of the miniseries. Every now and then, Firbank utilized sad and pensive expressions, reminding me of Evangeline Lilly’s early performances on ABC’s ”LOST”. And Marshall’s Wentworth seemed too friendly with the Musgrove sisters and polite toward Anne to hint any sense of remaining passion toward her. It was not until their encounter with William Elliot at Lyme Regis that I could detect signs – at least on Wentworth’s part – of emotion toward Anne. And it was only from this point onward, especially in the production's second-half, in which Firbank and Marshall finally conveyed a very strong screen chemistry. This was especially apparent in scenes where they met at a coffeehouse in Bath and at the opera.

In the end, I have to admit that this adaptation of "PERSUASION" struck me as entertaining. I cannot deny it. Despite being the most faithful of the three known adaptations, I had originally felt that it was probably more flawed than the latter versions. Screenwriter Julian Mitchell and director Howard Baker’s close adherence to Austen’s novel did not really help it in certain parts. In doing so, the miniseries adapted some of the faults that could be found in the novel. And the miniseries' close adaptation also dragged its pacing needlessly in the first half of Part Two. But I now realize that overall, it is just as good as the 1995 and the 2007 adaptations. I take that back. I believe it is slightly better than the other adaptations. And the excellent performances by the cast, led by Ann Firbank and Bryan Marshall; along with the colorful production designs and the story’s intelligence allowed me to enjoy it in the end.

"PERSUASION" (1971) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "PERSUASION", the 1971 BBC adaptation of Jane Austen's 1818 novel. Produced and directed by Howard Baker, and adapted by Julian Mitchell; the miniseries starred Ann Firbank and Bryan Marshall:




"PERSUASION" (1971) Images Gallery


































































david

Chicken Marengo

 

Below is a small article about a dish that was created in the early 19th century called Chicken Marengo. The dish is associated with a battle fought during the Napoleonic Wars:


CHICKEN MARENGO

Chicken Marengo is a dish that is surrounded by a great deal of myth. The dish consisted of a chicken sautéed in oil with garlic and tomato, and garnished with fried eggs and crayfish. It is similar to Chicken à la Provençale, but with the addition of egg and crayfish. The latter ingredients are traditional to Chicken Marengo, but are now often omitted. The original dish was named to celebrate the Battle of Marengo, a Napoleonic victory that was fought on June 14, 1800.

According to popular myth, Chicken Marengo was first created after Napoleon Bonaparte defeated the Austrian army at the Battle of Marengo, south of Turin, Italy. His personal chef Dunand foraged in the town of Marengo for ingredients, because the supply wagons were too distant. Dunand created the dish from what he could gather. According to this story, Napoleon enjoyed the dish so much he had it served to him after every battle. When Durand received better supplies, later on; he substituted mushrooms for crayfish and added wine to the recipe. Napoleon refused to accept it, believing that a change would bring him bad luck.

This colorful story, however, has been proven to be a myth. Alan Davidson writes that there would be no access to tomatoes at that time, and the first published recipe for the dish omits them. Also, according to The Old Foodie blog, Dunand did not become Napoleon’s chef until after the event. And the dish was not mentioned in contemporary accounts or cookbooks until nearly two decades later.

Below is a recipe for "Chicken Marengo" from the Epicurious.com website:


Chicken Marengo

Ingredients

4 (6-ounce) skinless boneless chicken breast halves
1/4 cup all-purpose flour
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/4 teaspoon black pepper
1/4 cup extra-virgin olive oil
3 large portabella mushrooms, stems and gills discarded and caps thinly sliced
1 small shallot, finely chopped
1 garlic clove, minced
1/2 teaspoon dried thyme, crumbled
1/2 cup dry red wine
1 (14- to 15-ounce) can whole tomatoes, drained and chopped
1/2 cup beef or veal demi-glace*
1/2 cup water


Preparation

Put oven rack in middle position and preheat oven to 350°F.

Pat chicken dry, then combine flour, salt, and pepper in a large sealable plastic bag and add chicken. Seal bag and shake to coat, then remove chicken, knocking off excess flour. Arrange in one layer on a plate.

Heat oil in a 12-inch heavy ovenproof skillet over moderately high heat until hot but not smoking, then sauté chicken, smooth sides down, until golden, about 2 minutes. Turn over and sauté one minute more. Scatter mushrooms around chicken and transfer skillet to oven, then bake, uncovered, until chicken is just cooked through, five to ten minutes.

Transfer chicken to a plate, then add shallot, garlic, and thyme to skillet (handle will be hot) and sauté over moderately high heat, stirring, one minute. Add wine and boil, stirring and scraping up brown bits, until reduced by half, about 1 minute. Add tomatoes, demi-glace, and water and simmer until mushrooms are tender and sauce is reduced by half, about 4 minutes. Season with pepper.

Return chicken to skillet and simmer, turning, about one minute.

TIME MACHINE: The War of 1812

TIME MACHINE: THE WAR OF 1812

Today marks the 200th anniversary of when President James Madison and the U.S. Congress declared war against Great Britain and the British Empire on June 18, 1812; an act that led to the beginning of the War of 1812 (1812-1814).

The War of 1812 was a major conflict that lasted two-and-a-half years between the young United States nation and the British Empire, along with the latter's Native American allies. The conflict was fought on both land and the sea, on and near the North American continent. There were a handful of reasons that led the U.S. government to declare war on Great Britain. Here are a few:

Impressment of American Sailors - Due to the Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815) waged against Napoleon's French Empire, sailors aboard American ships found themselves impressed by the Royal Navy and French ships. The British, especially, claimed that many sailors that found themselves aboard American merchant ships were deserters from their Navy. And many of them were. Their efforts to impress sailors from American ships became even more excessive after 1805. The problem of impressment culminated in the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair, a naval engagement between naval engagement that occurred off the coast of Norfolk, Virginia; on June 22, 1807, between the British warship H.M.S. Leopard and American frigate U.S.S. Chesapeake. The crew of the Leopard pursued, attacked and boarded the American frigate, while looking for deserters from the British Navy.

Orders in Council (1807) - This document was a series of decrees made by Great Britain that forbade French trade with the British Empire, its allies, or neutrals like the United States. The decrees were a response to France's Berlin Decree of 1806, which forbade the import of British goods into European countries allied with or dependent upon France and installed the Continental System in Europe. The Orders in Council led the British to use the Royal Navy to enact a blockade of French ports. The British used the Orders in Council as an excuse to bombard Copenhagen, Denmark in September 1807 (Battle of Copenhagen). They did so to prevent the Danish from joining France's Continental System. The British also used their decrees as an excuse for their policy of stopping neutral (including American) ships from trading with France. President Thomas Jefferson responded to the Orders by passing the Embargo Act of 1807, which forbade U.S. ships from trading with Britain and France. The act proved to be very ineffective, unpopular, and led to economic strain in the U.S., until it was repealed in 1809. Great Britain repealed the Orders in Council on June 16, 1812. But the news of the repeal, which gave great concessions to the U.S., did not reach American shores in time to prevent Congress from declaring war on the British.

American Expansion - This is believed to be one of the major causes of the war. The Americans wanted expansion into the Native American lands of the Northwest Territory and the Upper Mississippi Valley. However, the tribes blocked their expansion, and the British supported this block. The British worried about American desire for Canada, a problem that first manifested during the American Revolution. Many American historians believe that the U.S. desire for the conquest of Canada is nothing more than a staple of Canadian opinion since the 1830s and that it was never a permanent war goal, merely a tool for negotiations. However, many do believe that if the U.S. had been successful in acquiring control of Canadian lands, the government would have been very reluctant to return the occupied territory to the British.

Despite the many reasons that led to the beginning of the War of 1812, it took certain incidents that led the U.S. to declare war on Great Britain. Confrontations between the Royal Navy and American ships (both military and commercial) like the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair and the Leander Affair, the series of economic decrees and embargo acts, and military conflicts between the Native Americans and the Americans like the Tecumseh War in which the British supported the natives, finally led to the development of a coalition of young congressmen from the Democratic-Republican party (popular in the West and the South) called the "War Hawks". Led by Henry Clay Sr. of Kentucky and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, the "War Hawks" pushed for a declaration of war against Britain. President James Madison gave a speech to the U.S. Congress on June 1, 1812; listing American grievances against Great Britain. The House of Representatives quickly voted to declare war against the British, followed by the Senate. The conflict formally began on June 18, 1812; when President Madison signed the measure into law.

If you have any further interest in the War of 1812, the following is a sample of books you might want to read:

*"The War of 1812 - A Forgotten Conflict" by Donald R. Hickey

*"The War of 1812: Conflict for a Continent" by J.C.A. Stagg

*"1812: War With America" by Jon Latimer