List of Favorite Movie and Television Productions About the HOLOCAUST

Selection_Birkenau_ramp

Below is a list of my favorite movie and television productions about the Holocaust released in chronological order:

LIST OF FAVORITE MOVIE AND TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST

1 - The Search

“The Search” (1948) – Fred Zinneman directed this Oscar winning movie about a young Auschwitz survivor and his mother who search for each other across post-World War II Europe. Oscar nominee Montgomery Clift and Oscar winner
Ivan Jandl starred.

2 - The Diary of Anne Frank

“The Diary of Anne Frank” (1959) – George Stevens directed this adaptation of the Broadway play about Holocaust victimAnne Frank, her family and their friends hiding in an attic in Nazi-occupied Amsterdam. The movie starred Millie Perkins, Joseph Schildkraut and Oscar winner Shelley Winters.

3 - Judgment at Nuremberg

“Judgment at Nuremberg” (1961) – Stanley Kramer directed this Oscar winner about an American military tribunal in post-war occupied Germany that tries four Nazi judges for war crimes. Oscar nominee Spencer Tracy, Marlene Dietrich and Oscar winner Maximilian Schell starred.

4 - Marathon Man

“Marathon Man” (1976) – Dustin Hoffman, Oscar nominee Laurence Olivier and Roy Schneider starred in this adaptation of William Goldman’s 1974 novel about a history graduate student caught up in a conspiracy regarding stolen diamonds, a Nazi war criminal and a rogue government agent. John Schlesinger directed.

5 - Voyage of the Damned

“Voyage of the Damned” (1976) – Faye Dunaway and Max von Sydow starred in this adaptation of Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan-Witts’ 1974 book about the fate of the MS St. Louis ocean liner carrying Jewish refugees from Germany to Cuba in 1939. Stuart Rosenberg directed.

6 - Holocaust

“Holocaust” (1978) – Gerald Green wrote and produced this Emmy winning miniseries about the experiences of a German Jewish family and a rising member of the SS during World War II. Fritz Weaver, Rosemary Harris and Emmy winners Meryl Streep and Michael Moriarty starred.

7 - Sophie Choice

“Sophie’s Choice” (1982) – Oscar winner Meryl Streep, Kevin Kline and Peter MacNicol starred in this adaptation of William Styron’s 1979 novel about an American writer’s acquaintance with a Polish immigrant and Holocaust survivor in post-World War II New York City. The movie was directed by Alan J. Pakula.

8 - Escape From Sobibor

“Escape From Sobibor” (1987) – Alan Arkin, Joanna Paula and Golden Globe winner Rutger Hauer starred in this television movie about the mass escape of Jewish prisoners from the Nazi extermination camp at Sobibor in 1943. Jack Gold directed.

9 - War and Remembrance

“War and Remembrance” (1988) – Dan Curtis produced, directed and co-wrote this Emmy winning television adaptation of Herman Wouk’s 1978 novel about the experiences of a naval family and their in-laws during World War II. Robert Mitchum, Jane Seymour, Hart Bochner and John Gielgud starred.

10 - Schindlers List

“Schindler’s List” (1993) – Steven Spielberg produced and directed this Oscar winning adaptation of Thomas Keneally’s 1982 novel, “Schindler’s Ark” about Nazi party member and businessman, Oscar Schindler, who helped saved many Polish-Jewish refugees during the Holocaust by employing them in his factories. The movie starred Oscar nominees Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes and Ben Kingsley.

11 - Life Is Beautiful

“Life Is Beautiful” (1997) – Oscar winner Roberto Benigni starred, directed and co-wrote this Academy Award winning film about a Jewish-Italian book shop owner, who uses his imagination to shield his son from the horrors of a Nazi concentration camp. The movie co-starred Nicoletta Braschi and Giorgio Cantarini.

“Conspiracy” (2001) – This highly acclaimed HBO television movie dramatized the 1942 Wannasee Conference, a meeting between high Nazi officials to discuss the implementation of the final solution to the Jewish population under German control. Directed by Frank Pierson, the movie starred Kenneth Branagh and Stanley Tucci.

12 - The Pianist

“The Pianist” (2002) – Roman Polanski directed this Oscar winning adaptation of Polish-Jewish pianist Wladyslaw Szpilman‘s World War Ii memoirs. Oscar winner Adrien Brody and Thomas Kretschmann starred.

13 - Black Book

“Black Book” (2006) – Paul Verhoeven directed World War II tale about a Dutch-Jewish woman who becomes a spy for the Resistance after a tragic encounter with the Nazis. Carice van Houten and Sebastian Koch starred.

14 - The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas

“The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas” (2008) – Asa Butterfield, Jack Scanlon, Vera Fermiga and David Thewlis starred in this adaptation of John Boyne’s 2006 novel about a friendship between two eight year-olds – the son of an extermination camp commandant and a young Jewish inmate. Mark Herman directed.

“Inglourious Basterds” (2009) – Quentin Tarantino wrote and directed this Oscar winning alternate-history tale about two separate plots to assassinate Nazi Germany’s high political leadership at a film premiere in Nazi occupied Paris. The movie starred Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent and Oscar winner Christoph Waltz.

Advertisements

The Celebration of Mediocrity and Unoriginality in “STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS”

star-wars-episode-7-cast-photos-pic

 

“THE CELEBRATION OF MEDIOCRITY AND UNORIGINALITY IN “STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS”

Look … I liked the new “STAR WARS” movie, “THE FORCE AWAKENS”.  I honestly do.  Heck, I feel it is better than J.J. Abrams’ two “STAR TREK” films.  But I am astounded that this film has garnered so much acclaim.  It has won the AFI Award for Best Picture.  It has been nominated by the Critics Choice Award for Best Picture.

“THE FORCE AWAKENS”???  Really?  It did not take long for certain fans to point out that the movie’s plot bore a strong resemblance to the first “STAR WARS” movie, “A NEW HOPE”.  In fact, I am beginning to suspect that J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan had more or less plagiarized the 1977 film, along with aspects from other movies in the franchise.  Worse, it has some plot holes that Abrams has managed to ineffectively explain to the media.  In other words, his explanations seemed like shit in the wind and the plot holes remained obvious.

Then I found myself thinking about “THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.”, Guy Ritchie’s adaptation of the 1964-1968 television series.  I will not deny that the movie had some flaws.  Just about every movie I have seen throughout my life had some flaws.  But instead of attempting a carbon copy of the television series, Ritchie put his own, original spin of the show for his movie.  And personally, I had left the movie theater feeling impressed.  And entertained.  It is not that Ritchie had created a perfect movie.  But he did managed to create an original one, based upon an old source.  Now that was impressive.

But instead of having his movie appreciated, a good deal of the public stayed away in droves.  Warner Brothers barely publicized the film.  Worse, the studio released in August, the summer movie season’s graveyard.  And for those who did see the movie, the complained that it was not like the television show.  Ritchie had made changes for his film.  In other words, Ritchie was criticized for being original with a movie based upon an old television series.

This is incredibly pathetic.  One director is criticized giving an original spin to his movie adaptation.  Another director is hailed as the savior of a movie franchise for committing outright plagiarism.  This is what Western culture has devolved into, ladies and gentlemen.  We now live in a world in which the only movies that are box office hits are those that form part of a franchise.  We live in a society in which glossy and mediocre shows like “DOWNTON ABBEY” are celebrated.  We live in a world in which a crowd pleasing, yet standard movie biopic like “THE KING’S SPEECH”can receive more acclaim than an original film like “INCEPTION”.

In regard to culture or even pop culture, this society is rushing toward conformity, familiarity and mediocrity.  God help us.

“KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE” (2015) Review

kingsman1gal

“KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE” (2015) Review

Matthew Vaughn must be a major comic book fan. This is the second . . . no, third time in his career in which he has directed a film adaptation of a comic book series or story. This time, he directed an adaptation of Dave Gibbons and Mark Millar’s 2012 comic book series, “The Secret Service”.

“KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE” told the story of a young man named Gary “Eggsy” Unwin, who becomes a recruit for a secret service organization called Kingsman. The story begins in 1997 when a team of Kingsman agents led by Harry Hart lead a raid to interrogate a terrorist in the Middle East. When their prisoner reveals an unpinned grenade, one of the Kingsman agents – who turns out to be Eggsy’s father – sacrifices himself to save the others. Harry leaves a medal with a coded message to young Eggsy, in case the latter needs help. Seventeen years later, Eggsy, now a young unemployed adult living with his mother, an infant half-sister and an abusive stepfather; runs afoul of the police after he and his friends steal a car that belongs to one of his stepfather’s personal thugs. When Eggsy contacts Harry, using the medal, the latter arranges his release and encourages the younger man to apply for a position at the Kingsman agency.

Meanwhile, one Professor James Arnold is kidnapped by henchmen who work for Internet billionaire Richmond Valentine. A Kingsman agent known as “Lancelot”, tries to rescue Professor Arnold, but failes when Richmond’s henchwoman, Gazelle, kills him. Valentine manages to convince Arnold, along with various heads of state and VIPs, to participate in a scheme that he hopes will save the planet Earth from humanity. While Harry keeps an eye on Eggsy’s training, he also investigates Lancelot’s death and its connection to Valentine.

Okay, I might as well say it. I enjoyed “KINGSMAN” THE SECRET SERVICE” very much. Hell, I loved it. Now, I cannot say that it is an original tale, considering that it is based upon a comic novel. But it is one of the most enjoyable comic book adaptations I have seen since . . . well, since last year’s “CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER” and“GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY” Okay, it is simply a damn good movie. And I am amazed that 20th Century Fox did not release it for the summer season. It is worthy of a major summer release. But since the summer of 2015 might prove to be very competitive, I can understand why the studio decided to give it an early release.

I would not say that the plot for “KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE” is not particularly original. Then again, it might be. Yes, Richmond Valentine’s plot to improve Earth for mankind proved to be very similar to plots I have recently encountered in two ABC series – “ONCE UPON A TIME” and “AGENT CARTER”. But it was originally used in Millar and Gibbons’ 2012 comic book series. So, one can accuse the show runners for the two ABC of plagiarism. In some ways, the plot for “KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE” reminded me of the plot for the 2014 movie, “DIVERGENT”. Both movies started out featuring hardcore training sessions for the protagonists and ended with the characters of Eggsy Unwin and Tris Prior engaged in some serious action sequences. Yet Vaughn and co-screenwriter Jane Goldman did a better job of balancing Eggsy’s training and his participation in the movie’s final action sequence. This is due to the presence of Harry Hart, who served as this movie’s other major protagonist. While audiences were allowed to watch full details of Eggsy’s Kingsman training, they also got to see Harry’s detailed investigation of Richmond Valentine before the former was included. Using both Harry and Eggsy as the protagonists, while they engaged in their own agenda throughout most of the film allowed Vaughn and Goldman to maintain a balance in the story.

Despite “KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE” being an action comedy scene, it not only featured excellent acting, but also some interesting dramatic and comedic moments. Among my favorites included Eggsy’s introduction to the Kingsman organization, his conflicts with his abusive stepfather, Harry and Kingsman leader Chester King’s conflict over the idea recruiting potential agents from the middle and lower classes, Valentine’s recruitment of the world’s elite into his plan and his first meeting with Harry over a McDonald’s meal.

I talked a good deal about the movie’s plot. But remember . . . “KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE” is also an action film based upon a comic book series. And this movie featured a good deal of memorable action scenes. My favorites included Lancelot’s attempt to rescue Professor Arnold, two of the Kingsman training sessions featuring a water-filled room and a parachute jump, and Harry’s encounter with thugs working for Eggsy’s stepfather. My favorite sequence – and it is a long one – featured the remaining Kingsman operatives’ attempt to stop Valentine’s plot regarding the world’s human population. Most final sequences in action movies these days tend to be ridiculously long and filled with mindless violence and explosions. Yes, the final action sequence for “KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE” has its share of violence and explosions. But I thought it was well shot and did not leave me feeling disoriented and slightly deaf. This sequence also featured one of the funniest character death scenes I have seen on film.

Now . . . “KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE” is not perfect. I believe it has its flaws. First of all, there is one action sequence that I did not find particularly thrilling to watch. I am referring to the massacre at the Kentucky hate group headquarters in which Harry Hart participated against his will. My problem with this scene? It seemed to go on forever . . . as if Vaughn wanted to savor every moment of the violent conflict inside that Kentucky church just struck me as a bit too much. I also had a problem with the movie’s use of the Lancelot character, portrayed by Jack Davenport. I had no problem with the latter’s performance. But . . . I wish he had lasted a bit longer than he did. Davenport’s time span in the movie reminded me of his limited screen appearance in the 2007 movie, “PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD’S END”. Which left me feeling dissatisfied. I wanted to see more of the actor . . . in this film and in the previous one.

The performances featured in “KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE” proved to be first-rate. Hell, they were better than first-rate. The supporting cast – including Samantha Womack, Geoff Bell, Corey Johnson and Hanna Alström – provided some real, solid performances. But I was really impressed by Edward Holcroft’s portrayal of Charlie, Eggsy’s aristocratic main rival in the training program; Sophie Cookson as another one of Eggsy’s fellow trainees, the winsome, yet tough-minded Roxy; and Jack Davenport’s portrayal of Agent “Lancelot”, which struck me as a cheeky take on the James Bond character. Mark Hamill also gave a brief, yet entertaining appearance as a British academic named James Arnold, whom Valentine manages to recruit into his scheme. I was surprised by Hamill’s first-rate British accent. Michael Caine added a touch of class as the Kingsman agents’ aristocratic leader, Chester King aka “Arthur”. And Sofia Boutella was very impressive as Valentine’s cool and very deadly henchwoman, Gazelle. I swear . . . Boutella’s Gazelle could put any Bond henchman or woman to shame.

Mark Strong, a veteran of past Vaughn films, did a great job of portraying “Merlin”, a senior Kingsman agent who serves as the agency’s trainer and senior tech expert. I was especially impressed by how Strong managed to project a mixture of authority and cheeky sense of humor in his performance. One of the best things about “KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE” was Vaughn’s choice to portray the Kingsman trainee, Gary “Eggsy” Unwin. Taron Egerton gave a star making performance as the energetic and intelligent Eggsy, who is hampered by his working-class background and impatience. I never thought a twenty-something actor with very little experience could hold his own with the likes of Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Michael Caine and Samuel L. Jackson. But he did. Perfectly.

Colin Firth proved to be a surprisingly first-rate hero as Harry Hart, the veteran Kingsman agent who not only saw promise in Eggsy, but also the latter’s father some seventeen years earlier. Firth is cool, witty, and authoritative. More importantly, he proved for the first time in his career that he could be a superb action hero . . . even in his early fifties. All the film historians in the world could argue over who might be the best Bond villain. As far as I am concerned, the winner of that little contest could never be as good as Samuel L. Jackson’s portrayal of billionaire Richmond Valentine. He trounced them all. Not only was he one of the best (and scariest) on-screen villains I have seen in years, he was also very entertaining. Utilizing a lisp and projecting his character’s aversion to violence and blood, Jackson gave what I believe was the best performance in the movie.

It is rare to find a first-rate action film that was not released during the usual summer season. It is rare, but not unknown. I do not know how “KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE” would have held up against the movies released for the summer of 2015. But regardless of its release date, it might prove to be one of my favorite movies of the year. Matthew Vaughn did a superb job as director of this adaptation of the 2012 comic series. And he was ably supported by Jane Goldman as co-screenwriter and a superb cast led by Colin Firth, Samuel L. Jackson and Taron Egerton.

Top Ten Favorite Movies Set in the 1970s

1970-films-initials-and-graphics

Below is my current list of favorite movies set in the 1920s: 


FAVORITE MOVIES SET IN THE 1970s

1 - American Gangster

1. American Gangster (2007) – Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe starred in this biopic about former Harlem drug kingpin, Frank Lucas and Richie Roberts, the Newark police detective who finally caught him. Ridley Scott directed this energetic tale.



2 - Munich

2. Munich (2005) – Steven Spielberg directed this tense drama about Israel’s retaliation against the men who committed the Munich massacre at the 1972 Summer Olympics. Eric Bana, Daniel Craig and Ciarán Hinds starred.



3 - Rush

3. Rush (2013) – Ron Howard directed this account of the sports rivalry between James Hunt and Niki Lauda during the 1976 Formula One auto racing season. Chris Hemsworth and Daniel Brühl starred.



4 - Casino

4. Casino (1995) – Martin Scorsese directed this crime drama about rise and downfall of a gambler and enforcer sent West to run a Mob-owned Las Vegas casino. Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci and Sharon Stone starred.



5 - Super 8

5. Super 8 (2011) – J.J. Abrams directed this science-fiction thriller about a group of young teens who stumble across a dangerous presence in their town, after witnessing a train accident, while shooting their own 8mm film. Joel Courtney, Elle Fanning and Kyle Chandler starred.



6 - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

6. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (2011) – Gary Oldman starred as George Smiley in this recent adaptation of John le Carré’s 1974 novel about the hunt for a Soviet mole in MI-6. Tomas Alfredson directed.



7 - Apollo 13

7. Apollo 13(1995) – Ron Howard directed this dramatic account about the failed Apollo 13 mission in April 1970. Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton and Kevin Bacon starred.



8 - Nixon

8. Nixon (1995) – Oliver Stone directed this biopic about President Richard M. Nixon. The movie starred Anthony Hopkins and Joan Allen.



9 - Starsky and Hutch

9. Starsky and Hutch (2004) – Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson starred in this comedic movie adaptation of the 70s television series about two street cops hunting down a drug kingpin. Directed by Todd Phillips, the movie also starred Vince Vaughn, Jason Bateman and Snoop Dogg.



10 - Frost-Nixon

10. Frost/Nixon (2008) – Ron Howard directed this adaptation of the stage play about David Frost’s interviews with former President Richard Nixon in 1977. Frank Langella and Michael Sheen starred.

“TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY” (2011) Review

“TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY” (2011) Review

Between the late 1970s and early 1980s, author John le Carré wrote a series of popular novels called The Karla Trilogy that featured MI-6 officer George Smiley as the leading character. At least two versions of “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” had been made The most recent is the 2011 movie in which Gary Oldman starred as Smiley. 

Set in 1973, “TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY” has George Smiley, who was recently forced to retire, recalled to hunt down a Soviet mole named “Gerald” in MI-6 (a.k.a. the “Circus”), the highest echelon of the Secret Intelligence Service. The movie began with “Control” – the head of MI-6 – sending agent Jim Prideaux to Hungary to meet a Hungarian general who wishes to sell information. The operation is blown and the fleeing Prideaux is shot in the back by Hungarian intelligence. After the international incident that followed, Control and his right-hand man, Smiley were forced into retirement. Control, already ill, died soon afterwards. When field agent Rikki Tarr learned through his affair with the wife of a Moscow Centre intelligence officer in Turkey that the Soviets have a mole within the higher echelon of MI-6, Civil Service officer Oliver Lacon recalled Smiley from retirement to find the mole known as “Gerald”. Smiley discovered that Control suspected five senior intelligence officers:

*Smiley
*Percy Alleline (new MI-6 chief)
*Bill Haydon (one of Alleline’s deputies)
*Roy Bland (another Alleline deputy and the only one from a working-class
background)
*Toby Esterhase (Alleline’s Hungarian-born deputy, recruited by Smiley)

I have never seen the 1979 television version of le Carré’s 1974 novel, which starred Alec Guinness. In fact, I have never been inclined to watch it. Until now. My interest in seeing the television adaptation has a lot to do with my appreciation of this new film version. I enjoyed it very much. I did not love it. After all, it did not make my Ten Favorite Movies of 2011 list. It nearly did, but . . . not quite.

Why did “TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY” fail to make my favorite 2011 movies list? Overall, Tomas Alfredson did an excellentjob in translating le Carré’s story to the screen. However . . . the pacing was slow. In fact, it crawled at the speed of a snail. It was so slow that in the end, I fell asleep some fifteen to twenty minutes before the movie ending, missing the very moment when Smiley exposed “Gerald” at the safe. However, I did wake up in time to learn the identity of “Gerald” and the tragic consequences of that revelation. I have one more problem with the film. Benedict Cumberbatch portrayed Peter Guillam, a former division head recruited to assist Smiley in the latter’s mole hunt. There was a brief scene featuring “DOWNTON ABBEY” regular, Laura Carmichael, in which Guillam revealed his homosexuality. Cumberbatch did an excellent job in conveying this revelation with very little dialogue and a great deal of facial expressions. And yet . . . this revelation seemed to have very little or no bearing, whatsoever, in the movie’s main plot. Even Smiley’s marital problems ended up being relevant to the main narrative. End in the end, I found the revelation of Guillam’s sexuality a wasted opportunity.

But there is a great deal to admire about “TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY”. One, it is a fascinating tale about one of the time-honored plot lines used in more espionage – namely the mole hunt. I suppose one could credit le Carré for creating such a first-rate story. But I have seen too many mediocre or bad adaptations of excellent novels to solely credit le Carré for this movie. It would not have worked without great direction from Alfredson; or Bridget O’Connor and Peter Straughan’s superb script. I found Maria Djurkovic’s production designs for the film rather interesting. She injected an austere and slightly cold aura into her designs for 1973 London that suited the movie perfectly. And she was ably assisted by cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema, and art designers Tom Brown and Zsuzsa Kismarty-Lechner.

The heart and soul of “TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY” was its cast led by Gary Oldman, as George Smiley. The cast almost seemed to be a who’s who of British actors living in the United Kingdom. Toby Jones, Colin Firth, Ciarán Hinds and David Dencik portrayed the four men suspects being investigated by Smiley. All four did an excellent and kept the audience on their toes on who might be “Gerald”. However, I do have one minor complaint. Hinds’ character, Roy Bland, seemed to have received less screen time than the other three. Very little screen time, as a matter of fact. Mark Strong gave one of the movie’s better performances as the MI-6 agent, Jim Prideaux, who was betrayed by “Gerald” and eventually forced to leave “the Circus” following his return to Britain.

Both Simon McBurney and Kathy Burke gave solid performances as Civil Service officer Oliver Lecon and former MI-6 analyst Connie Sachs. However, Roger Lloyd-Pack seemed to be a bit wasted as another of Smiley’s assistants, Mendel. I have already commented on Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance as Peter Guillam. However, I must admit that I found his 1970s hairstyle to look a bit artificial. I can also say the same about the blond “locks” Tom Hardy used for his role as MI-6 agent Rikki Tarr. Fortunately, there was a good deal to admire about the actor’s emotional, yet controlled performance as Tarr. I really enjoyed John Hurt’s portrayal of Smiley’s former superior, the gregarious Control. I thought it was one of his more colorful roles in recent years.

However, the man of the hour is Gary Oldman and his portrayal of MI-6 officer, George Smiley. Many found the selection of Oldman to portray Smiley a rather curious one. The actor has built a reputation for portraying characters a lot more extroverted than the mild-mannered Smiley. His minimalist performance in “TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY” took a great deal of people by surprise. So much so that Oldman ended up earning an Academy Award nomination for his performance. And he deserved it, as far as I am concerned. I consider George Smiley to be one of Oldman’s best screen performances during his 30 odd years in movies. In fact, I suspect that the actor has made George Smiley his own, just as much as Alec Guinness did over thirty years ago.

As I had stated earlier, “TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY” is not perfect. Its pacing is as slow as molasses. I thought actor Ciarán Hinds and the plot revelation regarding Peter Gulliam’s homosexuality was vastly underused. But thanks to Tomas Alfredson’s direction, Bridget O’Connor and Peter Straughan’s Oscar nominated screenplay, and an excellent cast led by the superb Gary Oldman; the movie turned out to be a surprising treat and has ignited my interst in the world of George Smiley.

“PRIDE AND PREJUDICE” (1995) Review

“PRIDE AND PREJUDICE” (1995) Review

There have been numerous adaptations of Jane Austen’s celebrated 1813 novel, ”Pride and Prejudice” over the past decades. Two of these versions happened to be BBC miniseries that aired in 1980 and 1995. It has been a long time since I have viewed the 1980 miniseries. However, I recently saw the 1995 miniseries for the umpteenth time and decided to finally write a review of it. Adapted by screenwriter Andrew Davies, the miniseries was produced by Sue Birtwistle and directed by Simon Langton.

Austen’s story centered around one Elizabeth Bennet, the second of five daughters of a country gentleman living in Regency England and the efforts of her parents (or should I say of her mother) to find eligible husbands for her and her four other sisters. Two of these men happened to be the wealthy Charles Bingley, who has moved into the Bennets’ Hertfordshire neighborhood; and his wealthier friend, Fitzwilliam Darcy. The cheerful Mr. Bingley has managed to easily win the favor of the Bennets and their neighbors. He has also fallen in love with Elizabeth’s older sister, the even-tempered Jane. On the other hand, the more reticent Mr. Darcy not only managed to alienate Elizabeth, the other Bennets and the entire neighborhood with his aloof manner, but also fall in love with Elizabeth. ”PRIDE AND PREJUDICE”, more than anything, focused upon the volatile love story between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy.

Like nearly every other work of art in existence, ”PRIDE AND PREJUDICE” has its share of flaws. Years after I first saw this miniseries, I still find myself wincing at actress Alison Steadman’s portrayal of the boorish Mrs. Bennet. I realize that the character possessed a wince-inducing personality. But there seemed to be a shrill note in Steadman’s performance during the miniseries’ first episode that made her portrayal of Mrs. Bennet seemed over-the-top. Another complaint I have about the miniseries is the lack of complexity in supporting characters like Elizabeth’s aunt and uncle – Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner – and Darcy’s sister, Georgiana. I found all three very likeable, but also slightly boring. They were the only characters that seemed to indulge in banal conversation that complimented everyone and everything.

I have two problems regarding the crisis over Lydia Bennet’s elopement with George Wickham, Darcy’s boyhood companion. One, I never understood why a calculating scoundrel like Wickham would bother to leave Brighton with Lydia in tow, on the promise of elopement. He knew that her family did not have the funds to buy him off. And I have read excuses, which explained that Wickham left Brighton because he had accumulated a good deal of debt during his regiment’s stay. I have also read that he took Lydia with him as an excuse to get out of town. With the promise of elopement? That does not sound right. Wickham was not a fool. It was bad enough that he had accumulated debts and had to get out of Brighton. But to drag Lydia in this mess did not strike me as logical. All he had to do was leave town in the middle of the night. Whether he was with Lydia or by himself, he ended up being absent without leave. I cannot help but wonder if Austen ever thought this through when she wrote her novel. The elopement crisis also forced Elizabeth to end her summer tour of Derbyshire with the Gardiners and return to her family at Longbourn. For the next twenty minutes or so, ”PRIDE AND PREJUDICE” grounded to a halt, while the Bennets received a series of correspondence and visitors. This sequence featured two scenes of a bored Lydia and an anxious, yet frustrated Lydia sharing a rented room in London, and two featuring Darcy’s search for the pair. This sequence also featured a meaningless visit from Mr. Collins in which he smirked over the family’s possible ruination for less than five minutes. These little scenes failed to help the sequence move at a faster pace.

Before one starts to assume that I do not like ”PRIDE AND PREJUDICE”, let me make it clear that I enjoyed it very much. In fact, I absolutely adore it. Not only is it one of my favorite Jane Austen adaptations of all time, it is one of my top ten favorite miniseries of all time. Yes, it has its flaws. Even some of the best movies and television productions have flaws. And as I have pointed out, I do believe that the 1995 miniseries is no exception. But its virtues definitely outweighed the flaws. The miniseries’ five-and-a-half hours running time proved to be more of a virtue than a hindrance. But the miniseries format allowed viewers to enjoy this adaptation at a more leisurely pace than is allowed in a movie adaptation and the rich details of the story. I have seen at least five versions of Austen’s ”Pride and Prejudice”. I have noticed that the plots for two of the movie versions went into great detail of the novel’s first half – from the Bingleys and Darcy’s arrival in Hertfordshire to Darcy’s first proposal to Elizabeth in Kent. But after that first proposal, the movie versions seemed to zoom ahead to Lady Catherine de Bourgh’s visit to Longbourn. I cannot say the same for the two television versions I have seen – especially the 1995 version. Aside from the tedious “search for Lydia” sequence, the story’s second half proved to be quite entertaining – especially Elizabeth’s visit to Derbyshire, Lydia and Wickham’s visit to Longbourn as a married couple, along with Darcy and Bingley’s efforts to renew their pursuits of the two elder Bennet sisters.

It could be understandable that the movie adaptations seemed to focus more on the novel’s first half. After all, many consider it to be the best part. The Bennets’ encounters with Darcy and the Bingleys crackled with energy and great humor. The series of fascinating verbal duels between the two lead characters possessed that same energy, along with a great deal of sexual tension. And when one throws the obsequious and ridiculous Mr. Collins into the mix, one has the feeling of watching a comedy-romantic masterpiece. All of this humor, energy and romance, mixed in with an elegant setting seemed to be at an apex in the Netherfield ball sequence. Personally, I consider the dance shared warily between Elizabeth and Darcy to be one of the best written and filmed scenes in the entire miniseries. Another scene that many consider to be one of the best, featured Darcy’s first marriage proposal to Elizabeth, during her visit to Charlotte and Mr. Collins at Hunsford Lodge, in Kent. That particular scene has to be one of the most wince-inducing moments in the entire story. Why? Because I found it hard to watch Elizabeth receive that extra-ordinary marriage proposal laced with passion . . . and slightly insulting remarks about her family background on her mother’s side. And because I found it difficult to watch Darcy endure Elizabeth’s heart stomping rejection. Both Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth performed the hell out of that scene.

Speaking of performances, one of the miniseries’ greatest assets was its cast. Jane Austen wrote a novel filled with some rich supporting characters. Director Simon Langton and screenwriter Andrew Davies utilized them very well. And so did the cast. Now, I cannot take back my complaints regarding Alison Steadman’s performance as Mrs. Bennet in the first hour. Yet shrill or not, she managed to capture her character’s personality perfectly. And so did Benjamin Whitrow, who portrayed the sardonic and long suffering Mr. Bennet. Some fans of Austen’s novel have complained about David Bamber’s buffoonish take on Mr. Collins, the Bennet’s obsequious cousin fated to inherit Longbourn upon Mr. Bennet’s death. But my memories of the literary Mr. Collins were that of a buffoonish man. However, Bamber gave his Mr. Collins a brief, poignant moment when Elizabeth took pity on his efforts to hide his slightly damaged pride with a tour of Hunsford. Julia Sawalha did a superb job in her portrayal of the youngest Bennet sibling – the thoughtless and self-centered Lydia. In fact, Sawalha managed to give one of the funniest performances in the entire miniseries.

One of the memorable performances in the miniseries came from actress Anna Chancellor, who portrayed one of Charles Bingley’s annoying and snobbish sister, Caroline. Chancellor managed to convey not only Caroline’s pretentious and spiteful sense of humor very well, but also the character’s desperate attempts to woo an uninterested Mr. Darcy. I believe that Crispin Bonham-Carter did a good job in infusing his character, Charles Bingley, with a good deal of bohemian warmth and cheerfulness. Yet, he had a tendency to read his lines in a broad manner that struck me as a bit too theatrical at times. I must admit that he could be very subtle in conveying Bingley’s attempts to suppress negative reactions to certain members of the Bennet family and his two sisters. Superficially, Susannah Harker’s performance as Jane Bennet seemed solid . . . almost dull. But a closer look at the actress’s performance made me realize that her she did a much better job in the role than most people were willing to give her credit for. She was excellent in conveying Jane’s heartbreak over the separation from Mr. Bingley. And she had one truly hilarious moment during the Netherfield Ball, when her character anxiously pointed out Mr. Collins’ intentions to speak to Mr. Darcy. But more importantly, Harker’s Jane seemed more like an older sister than the performances of the other actresses who had portrayed the role.

If I have to cite what I consider to be the three best performances in ”PRIDE AND PREJUDICE”, they would be Adrian Lukis as George Wickham, Colin Firth as Fitzwilliam Darcy, and Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennet. In my opinion, Lukis’ portrayal of the charming and devious wastrel, George Wickham, is the best I have seen by any actor who has portrayed the role. I would not claim that he was the best looking Wickham. But Lukis conveyed a seamless charm that hinted a heady mixture of warmth, false honesty, and intimacy that could make anyone forget that his Wickham was a man one could not trust. And the actor achieved this with a subtle skill that made the other Wickhams look like amateurs.

Many fans and critics have labeled Colin Firth’s portrayal of Fitzwilliam Darcy as “smoldering” or “sexy” . . . worthy of a sex symbol. I do not know if I would agree with that assessment. What many saw as “smoldering”, I saw a performance in which the actor utilized his eyes to convey his character’s emotional responses. Whether Firth’s Darcy expressed contempt toward others, growing love and desire for Elizabeth Bennet, anxiety, wariness or any other emotion; Firth uses his eyes and facial expressions with great skill. Some fans have complained that his Darcy appeared in too many scenes in the last third of the series. I consider this nothing more than an exaggeration. Personally, I enjoyed those little sequences in which Firth revealed Darcy’s struggles to deal with Elizabeth’s rejection. While several others drooled over Firth in a wet shirt and breeches, I enjoyed the awkwardness in the reunion between his Darcy and Elizabeth. Firth earned an Emmy nomination for his portrayal of the complex and reserved Mr. Darcy. And as far as I am concerned, he certainly deserved it . . . and a lot more.

Jennifer Ehle won a BAFTA award for her portrayal of Elizabeth Bennet, the vivacious leading lady of ”PRIDE AND PREJUDICE”. And it was a well deserved award, as far as I am concerned. Ehle not only formed a sizzling screen chemistry with Colin Firth, but with Adrian Lukis, as well. And like the two actors, she put her own stamp on her role. Ehle perfectly captured the aspects of Elizabeth’s character that many fans have admired – her liveliness, intelligence, warmth and sharp wit. Elizabeth’s habit of forming and maintain first opinions of others have been well-documented, which Ehle managed to capture. She also conveyed another disturbing aspect of Elizabeth’s personality – namely her arrogance. In some ways, Ehle’s Elizabeth could be just as arrogant as Mr. Darcy. She seemed to harbor a lack of tolerance toward those she viewed as flawed individuals. And thanks to Ehle’s skillful performance, this arrogance is conveyed in Elizabeth’s wit, barely suppressed rudeness and unwillingness to listen to good advice about making fast judgment about others from two people she highly admired – her sister Jane and her good friend, Charlotte Lucas.

The most important thing I can say about both Ehle and Firth is that the pair managed to form a sizzling screen chemistry. In other words, their Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy crackled with a great deal of energy, subtle sexuality and sharp wit. Their screen chemistry seemed stronger than any of the other screen couples who have portrayed the two characters. Surprisingly, I do have one problem with the two leads in the miniseries. And I have to place all of the blame on Andrew Davies, when he decided to faithfully adapt one scene in which the newly engaged Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy discussed the development of their relationship. Unfortunately, they came off sounding cold and clinical – like two psychoanalysts examining the genesis of their romance.

There is no doubt that producer Sue Birtwistle, director Simon Langton and the production team did a superb job with the miniseries’ overall production design. Mind you, I feel that the overall credit belonged to production designer Gerry Scott and art designers John Collins and Mark Kebby. They did a top notch job in capturing Austen’s tone from the novel by giving the miniseries a light and natural look to its setting. I could say the same for cinematographer John Kenway’s photography. I am not claiming to be an expert on the fashions of Regency Britain. Yet, from what I have read in other articles, many believed that Dinah Collin’s costumes closely recaptured the fashion and styles of the period when the novel was first published. I could not make final statement about that. But I must admit that the fashions perfectly captured the tone of the story and the production designs. If there is one other aspect of the miniseries that reflected its look and tone, I believe it would have to be Carl Davis’ score. Either he or Birtwistle made the right choice in hiring pianist Melvyn Tan to perform the score for the series’ opening credit.

In the end, ”PRIDE AND PREJUDICE” became one of the most acclaimed miniseries on both sides of the Atlantic. Even after fifteen years, it is still highly regarded. And rightly so. Despite a few flaws, I believe it deserves its accolades. As far as I am concerned, the 1995 miniseries remains to be the best adaptation of Jane Austen’s 1813 novel. I also believe it is one of the best adaptations of any Austen novel, period.

“THE KING’S SPEECH” (2010) Review

“THE KING’S SPEECH” (2010) Review

Inspirational movies have been the hallmark of Hollywood films over the decades. They especially became popular between the mid-1970s and the early 1990s. After the mid-90s, I never thought they would become popular again. But the recent release of the historical drama, ”THE KING’S SPEECH” proved me wrong. 

Directed by Tom Hooper and written by David Seidler, ”THE KING’S SPEECH” told the story of Great Britain’s King George VI’s difficulties with a speech impediment and his relationship with Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue, who helped him overcome his stutter. The movie opened with George VI (then Prince Albert, Duke of York) at the closing of the 1925 Empire Exhibition at Wembley Stadium, with his wife Elizabeth by his side. There he gives a stammering speech that visibly unsettles the thousands of listeners in the audience. After nine years of unsuccessfully finding a speech therapist that can help him, Elizabeth recruits Australian-born Lionel Logue to meet him. The two men eventually bond and Logue helps the Duke of York overcome the latter’s stammer during a series of crises that include the death of George V; his brother, King Edward VIII’s romance with American divorcee, Wallis Simpson; the abdication of Edward; the Duke of York’s ascension to the throne as George VI; his coronation and the start of World War II. Also during this period, both king and speech therapist become close friends.

What can I say about ”THE KING’S SPEECH”? I cannot deny that it was a heartwarming tale about the growing friendship of two men from disparate backgrounds. Seidler’s script was filled with wit, charm, warmth and pathos that filled the heart. The cast, lead by Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush, did great credit to the script. There have been complaints about the film’s historical accuracy from both the media and historians. And there is a good deal of the story that is historically inaccurate. George VI and Lionel Logue’s collaboration began as far back as 1926, not 1934. And the king was also pro-appeasement in the late 1930s. In fact, the majority of Britons during that period were pro-appeasement. What historians fail to realize is that appeasement was popular due to a lack of desire for another war against Germany. World War I had traumatized a generation that included George VI. One also has to remember that ”THE KING’S SPEECH” is a drama based upon historical fact, not a documentary. One would know by now that complete historical accuracy in a work of fiction is rare. It has been rare for as long as there have been fictional work based upon history. And to be honest, I do not believe that the movie’s fiddling with historical fact has not harmed the story.

One would think that I consider ”THE KING’S SPEECH” to be one of the best movies this year. Frankly, I find labeling what is ”the best” rather subjective. I did enjoy the movie and it made the list of my Top Ten Favorite Movies of 2010. However, I must admit that I do not consider it to be a particularly original film. One, it is one of those inspirational films that moviegoers tend to love – movies like ”SEABISCUIT””CINDERELLA MAN” and the 1976 Oscar winner, ”ROCKY”. And if I must be brutally honest, there was nothing original about ”THE KING’S SPEECH” – even for an inspirational film. I already have a nickname for it – ’ROCKY in the Palace’. Another problem I have with the movie is that I was not that impressed by its visual style. I found Danny Cohen’s photography rather pedestrian. And Eve Stewart’s production designs and Judy Farr’s set decorations were very disappointing. Only the movie’s exterior shots prevented ”THE KING’S SPEECH” from becoming another filmed stage play. And the actual sets struck me as very dull. My hopes of a rich look at London and the rest of Great Britain during the 1920s and 30s fell short. I suppose I should not have been surprised by the movie’s uninspiring visual style. It only had a budget of $15 million dollars. I suspect the producers had very little money to work with.

With a few exceptions, the cast turned out to be first-rate. Colin Firth gave a superb and complex performance as the insecure sovereign with the speech impediment. I am not that surprised that he managed to earn nominations and win a good number of acting awards. Geoffrey Rush, who portrayed Lionel Logue, gave a first-rate performance filled with a great deal of sly humor. Also, he and Firth generated a strong screen chemistry. Helena Bonham-Carter was a charming and witty Duchess of York/Queen Elizabeth. However, I would have never considered her performance worth of any acting award nomination. She was simply portraying the “loyal wife” schtick. I was surprised to find Guy Pierce portraying the love obsessed and selfish Edward VIII. And I must he was very subtle and effective in revealing the man’s less admirable traits. The movie also benefitted solid performances from the likes of Michael Gambon as King George V, Claire Bloom as Queen Mary, and Anthony Andrews, who was surprisingly effective as Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin.

However, there were some performances that I found unsatisfying. Being a fan of Jennifer Ehle, I was disappointed in the limitations of her role as Logue’s wife, Myrtle. She hardly had a chance to do anything, except murmur a few words of encouragement to Logue. Her only great moment occurred in a scene that featured Myrtle Logue’s realization that the King of England was one of her husband’s clients. Seeing Ehle and Firth in the same scene together brought back memories of the 1995 adaptation of ”PRIDE AND PREJUDICE”. I also had a problem with Eve Best’s portrayal of American divorcee, Wallis Simpson. Her Wallis came off as more extroverted than the divorcee in real life. And I hate to say this, but Timothy Spall’s interpretation of Winston Churchill seemed more like a parody than a serious portrayal. Every time he was on the screen, I could not help but wince.

In conclusion, I enjoyed ”THE KING’S SPEECH” very much. Despite its lack of originality, I found it heartwarming, humorous, and dramatic; thanks to Tom Hooper’s direction and Seidler’s writing. And aside from a few performances, I was impressed by the cast, especially leading men Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush. I would never consider it artistically worthy of an Oscar for Best Picture. But I cannot deny that it was entertaining.

—————–

As an extra treat, below is a video clip featuring a speech given by King George VI at the an Empire Exhibition at Ibrox Park, Glasgow, Scotland; 1938.