Change Your Image
griffic-2
Reviews
Chiefs (1983)
A Truly Great Southern Tale
It's been a long time since I've seen this mini-series, but I recorded all three episodes on VHS back in the 80's (I think my mom may still have it). After finally reading Stuart Woods' original novel, it just took me back to how great the teleplay was (it was THAT faithful)!
It's a tale about murder, for sure. But it's a tale about the South specifically. Race relations, politics and family. It's gripping, suspenseful and even important.
All the performances are uniformly excellent. Charlton Heston, Wayne Rogers, Billy Dee Williams, Keith Carradine, Tess Harper, Paul Sorvino, Lane Smith, Victoria Tennant, Stephen Collins and Danny Glover are just some of the major performances noteworthy. There's a nice bunch of southern actors mixed in with the (inevitable) few non-southern ones. If one actor is to be singled out for their performances, it's Brad Davis. His brooding, explosive performance as the bullying racist Sonny Butts reminds one of the intensity of a young Jack Nicholson or Marlon Brando. I hear the heavily edited 200 minute version of CHIEFS has cut a lot of the Brad Davis chapter. Too bad!
Which brings me to the DVD release. WHERE IS IT? Seriously, considering all the TV movies that have been released on disc over the years, it's time for CHIEFS to get what it deserves: A handsome DVD release, digitally remastered in a multi-disc box set. Completely uncut. Is this too much to ask?
The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (1988)
Just Brilliant!
Considering they're reviving The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial on Broadway, I thought I'd revisit the truly great 1988 TV-Movie with a review of my own.
I remember when this film was broadcast. This was at a time when the major networks knew how to make made-for-television films. The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial, which played on CBS, placed last opposite NBC's science fiction thriller Something Is Out There and ABC's The Bourne Identity with Richard Chamberlain. But it wasn't just last...practically NOBODY saw it! A shame, because it was easily the best of the three films (although Bourne was pretty good).
Caine was directed by the legendary Robert Altman, who has always been a friend to his actors...allowing them a lot of freedom to perform. Because of the source material (the Herman Wouk novel and play), his actors are a little more confined, yet Altman still manages to take advantage of amazing performances. Setting the courtroom inside a gymnasium is a stroke of genius. I'm not sure why they would set up court there, but being in the military myself, I know it's not unusual to make the best of an unusual situation...thus, it wouldn't be completely out of the ordinary for a military court to utilize another facility under certain circumstances. Anyway, Altman sets the stage within the gym in a way that allows us to get the most out of the performances. It's hard to describe, but when you see it, you'll understand...especially they way we are able to view characters in the background as another character is testifying.
Of course, the best thing about film (besides Wouk's words) is the actors' performances. Eric Bogosian, Jeff Daniels, Peter Gallagher, Michael Murphy, Kevin J. O'Connor and Brad Davis are all first rate. Bogosian is a dominant force as the defense attorney. Jeff Daniels absolutely personifies the accused. Gallagher makes a razor sharp prosecutor. Judging the proceedings is the very fine Murphy. And O'Connor has to convey a slime-ball without being overtly so...he excels.
Finally, there's Davis. It's easy to see why people keep comparing his performance to Bogart. Bogart was a legend and his performance received a lot of attention. But I'm not really a slave to the original film. In the original film, much of the suspense and intrigue of the story is undercut by the rather weak central character and his point-of-view. That is fine for the book, but a film needs to be more focused.
That's where The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial comes in, it's taut suspenseful and intense. Brad Davis exemplifies those aspects with his VERY intense performance. Bogart was wonderful as the unstable commander of the Caine, Philip Francis Queeg. But his Queeg is kind of a pathetic character...more subdued. It's a nice take on the character but it's not the only way Queeg can be portrayed. In fact, he's much more intense, even hyper in the original novel. And that's the way Davis portrays Queeg in Court-Martial. Davis' captain is energetic from the start, jumping at the chance to defend his actions on the Caine and attacking his enemies. But there's much more to Queeg. I couldn't take my eyes off of Davis. He's filled with such intensity, he's like a rocket ship ready to take off at any moment...a bomb ready to explode. And I LOVE it! Word was Brad Davis was Alman's personal choice to play Queeg when the network's original choice Keith Carradine had other commitments. Carradine would have been great, but I see him delivering a Bogart-like Queeg. I thank Altman for casting Davis because he's given us a much different, but no less effective Captain Queeg!
Bringing Herman Wouk's intense drama to the screen...with such an incredible cast...expertly directed by Robert Altman. It's no wonder this is one of my favorite TV-Movies of all time!
A Christmas Carol (1999)
Patrick's Perplexing Performance
I recently watched this 1999 version of A Christmas CAROL again and it's just not good. There's quite a bit I could discuss...from the pedestrian production values and obvious studio sets, to the performances that range from okay to terrible! But it's Patrick Stewart's performance I've just got to get into.
As much respect as I have for Stewart, I'm sorry to say this is the worst performance of Ebenezer Scrooge I've ever seen. I honestly don't know what he's doing at times. One moment he appears to be frightened by Jacob Marley's ghost, the next he's calmly helping lift Marley's jaw when his jaw-wrap is untied. Scrooge then asks Marley, in a curiously philosophical manner, why spirits walk the earth.
When Marley indicates to Scrooge that he, too, forges his own set of chains, Stewart looks around as if to locate the invisible chains. Then he slowly turns his head up toward Marley, smiles and say, "Jacob...Speak comfort to me!" Stewart delivers the line as if he believes Marley is pulling a prank...as if he's actually saying, "Jacob...(you old practical joker, you) speak comfort to me!" Strange.
Yet when he visits his Christmases Past, Present and most of the future, Stewart is oddly stoic the whole time...even during tragic moments.
There's a moment when the Ghost of Christmas Present tells Scrooge Tiny Tim will die, Stewart just folds his arms and looks down. I'm not sure what Stewart is trying to communicate at that moment because crossing one's arms is traditionally a defensive posture. Was his Scrooge trying to suppress himself from being emotional, thus folding his arms? Or is that Stewart's way of expressing sadness? Either way, it's a strange choice, made worse by the fact that he remains just as unemotional later as he watches the Cratchets' mourn for Tiny Tim. I'm not looking for Patrick Stewart to break into a crying fit...I just want to be able to discern some sort of emotional response from Scrooge.
Probably the worst decision Stewart makes occurs during the critical graveyard scene. As with all other versions of A Christmas Carol, Scrooge overhears businessmen talking about a recently deceased associate. He also witnesses the dead man's effects being pawned off. By the start of the graveyard scene Scrooge should at least have SOME idea that perhaps, just maybe, he's the dead man. This is why Scrooge hesitates to view the tombstone and asks if the future can be changed before even reading the inscribed name. Practically all the other actors who've portrayed Scrooge have understood this concept: Scrooge KNOWS it's going to be his name on that stone...he just doesn't want to believe it. So he must read the name to fully come to terms with his fate.
But Patrick Stewart plays the scene as if it comes as a total surprise. He looks down at the name on the stone and, in a rare show of emotion, looks up at the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come with genuine shock! Then he starts crying and begging for mercy and promises to change.
Why does he think the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come showed him these moments? Who else could the dead man have been? Is his Ebenezer Scrooge so clueless? This is an AWFUL decision by Stewart.
It's as if nothing about Scrooge's Past, Present or Future really registered until he realized he was going to die. Only the thought of his own death made him change. Had he never read his name on the tombstone, he probably would not have changed at all. That's the impression we get from Stewart's choice to be stoic and unemotional up until the graveyard scene.
At least Stewart's performance as the reformed Scrooge is appropriate...for the most part. Unfortunately, there is an extremely awkward moment in which he appears to be choking, then bursts into laughter. I think I know what Stewart was going for: Scrooge hasn't laughed for so long, he physically forgot how. Thus, he has to choke out the laughter. It doesn't work! It's a moment Stewart no doubt thought was clever, yet seems forced and unrealistic.
Another reviewer suggested Patrick Stewart seems to be trying too hard to be a different Scrooge. I think that's true. While I believe the character is open to different interpretations, Stewart's choices seem to be all wrong (even his decision to stay completely bald...I would love to have seen some side-burns and a bit of hair growth around the temples).
Believe it or not, I do hate to be so negative because I respect Patrick Stewart and have enjoyed past performances (my mom absolutely loves him). I know he's played this character on stage before in a one-man-show, and he claims to have a unique perspective of Scrooge. Yet Stewart seems uncomfortable and confused in the role.
Earlier I asked if Patrick Stewart's Scrooge was clueless. In truth, I believe that description belongs to the actor himself. After all his years of experience with A Christmas Carol on stage, Patrick Stewart doesn't know Ebenezer Scrooge at all.
Scrooge (1951)
Good Version, Brilliant Scrooge!
To a previous post, the only version I can think of in which Scrooge falls through grave and ends up in Hell is the 1970 musical SCROOGE with Albert Finney. I don't remember seeing little devils though.
As to this 1951 film, I recently revisited it again, and enjoyed it more than previously. Alastair Sim truly is amazing. He's at times sad, other times shy, and then funny. His scenes of redemption at the end are classic. In fact, when people say Sim is the greatest, I'm sure they are thinking of the final moments of the film in which Scrooge runs around his house, scaring his housekeeper (wanting to stand on his head, etc). I do believe Ebenezer Scrooge is a character open to various interpretations however. Which is why I also love the performances of George C. Scott and Michael Caine in their respective portrayals of Scrooge. All three are very different, but quite wonderful in their own ways.
The reason I don't give this version the highest review is simply because I find the pacing to be a bit off. The 1951 version spends WAY too much time on Scrooge's past. Among scenes not usually in other versions, we bear witness to Scrooge's business dealings and two death-bed scenes. While I agree Scrooge's past is important for us to see how he became such a miser, his "present" is important in showing Scrooge that the world goes beyond his counting house. And the "future" is importing in showing Scrooge the consequences of his actions. The worst part of spending so much time in Scrooge's past is we sometimes feel alone in these flashbacks. By that I mean, we don't see enough of Alastair Sim's reactions to many of these tragic moments of his life. All too often we only see his reaction at the end of the scene before transitioning to the next. In other words, we sometimes forget Sim is there during the flashbacks, making the already long Christmas Past seem quite longer.
Also, there are few too many obvious moments...moments that are a little too telling. Such as when Scrooge tells his sister she must never die...she must live forever. Or when Scrooge's fiancé makes him promise that he'll always love her despite her lack of wealth. These are moments of obvious foreshadowing, and lack subtlety.
Also lacking subtlety is the moment Tiny Tim supposes the prize Turkey given anonymously to the Cratchet's in fact came from Scrooge. It's almost as if a magical little angel whispered into Tim's ear that Scrooge is the benefactor...please!
Speaking of "Tiny" Tim, what exactly is so tiny about him? Probably the healthiest interpretation of the character I've ever seen. I thought he just sprained his ankle or something. Seriously, that boy must've been about 15 years old. He's almost as tall as his father. The sight of his huge crutch leaning against the wall is almost...ALMOST as funny as the ridiculous visual of Bob Cratchet carrying Tim on his shoulder. That moment has to be seen to be believed.
Anyway, despite all this I do like the 1951 A Christmas CAROL. Alastair Sim is so good and his redemption so joyous and touching, it would be a shame to miss it.
A Christmas Carol (1984)
Analysis of A Christmas CAROL (1984)
I wanted to give an (itemized) analysis of why I love this version of A Christmas Carol, so here goes:
POTENTIAL CONS: Scrooge is played by an American actor instead of British, with George C. Scott quite stocky as opposed to more traditional thin version of Scrooge.
Ghost of Christmas Past has peculiar 80's hair-style...not a big deal, but strange.
Simplified special effects.
PROS: Scott creates utterly realistic, capitalistic Ebenezer Scrooge. Not one-dimensionally hateful early on...not completely filled with joy at the end. Between the nastiness and cheer, Scott displays proper amount of sadness, regret and humor. In fact, Scott may be the funniest pre-reformation Scrooge of all interpretations. English accent is fine, voice is ideally harsh and gravelly (note the way he call out to "Mr Craaatcheett!!!"). Scott's wonderfully expressive face is added bonus.
Brilliant supporting cast, separates itself from all other versions of A Christmas Carol. Probably the most compelling Jacob Marley, most colorful Ghost of Christmas Present, creepiest Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come, warmest Bob Cratchet and most pitiful Tiny Tim (in a good way)! And the rest of the cast is uniformly excellent.
The lush production is atmospheric with authentic locales (courtesy of Shrewsbury, England), sets and costumes, accompanied by first-rate cinematography and musical score. Filmed by director Clive Donner almost like a cinematic feature with no visible evidence of commercial interludes.
Makes brilliant use of limited special effects, such as the use of shadows and silhouettes to enhance the chilling presentation of the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come.
THE LITTLE THINGS: These are subtleties that separate this version from the rest.
The chime from Scrooge's watch is a variation of the film's music theme and becomes part of the story.
Almost seamless transitions...remarkable considering this is a made-for-TV movie.
Includes a scene not in other versions, in which Scrooge bears witness to a homeless family. This scene reminds Scrooge about the plight of others.
Scrooge is allowed a moment of reflection before appearance of Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come. Another scene includes time for Scrooge to nap before Christmas morning, allowing him to rest after his long night and awaken a new man. Most versions of the story have Scrooge return from his Christmas yet to come already mid-morning Christmas Day, joyous and reformed without much of a break in between.
Recurring mention of Fred's resemblance to his mother Fan (Scrooge's sister). Fan appears for only a small period of time, but the film makes clear Scrooge's love for her.
These little things are not typically essential in telling the story of A Christmas Carol, indeed were probably not from Dickens' novel. They do, however, add wonderful layers and subtext, creating a deeper, richer adaptation than most interpretations of this classic Christmas tale!
Cheyenne (1996)
It plays on the ENC!
I could swear that I originally saw this movie a few months ago on the Encore-Western channel with the awesome Bobbie Phillips in a nude scene...but I tried to watch the movie again this past week and that scene is no longer there!!! This movie is so bad that Bobbie's stunning "endowments" are the ONLY thing going for it! Given that it's an ENCR channel, why in the world would you edit they take it out?
The Statement (2003)
A Faithful Adaption!
I've read some people comment about how the characters in THE STATEMENT film should speak with French accents as the film is set in France. I have to tell you that nothing would be more distracting that a bunch of English actors using phony French accents for 2 hrs. The film would be ripped apart by the critics far worse than to go without the accents. That's why other French-set films like QUILLS and THE THREE MUSKETEERS have decided to use English accents. Intelligent movie-going audiences are supposed to be able to suspend their disbelief and assume early on that the characters are French, because the fact that they are French is, frankly, unimportant...The idea is for English speaking audiences to follow the plot and identify somewhat with the characters, and it's far easier to do that without the use of distractingly bad foreign accents. Besides, in reality the French don't speak English with French accents...they speak the French language! So unless you commit to allowing the actors to speak the actual language, the next best thing is to have them go with the actors' native language, especially since the filmakers are trying to appeal to English speaking audiences!
I've also noticed a couple of people being quite critical of the moment when Caine's character kicks a dog. In fact, someone on this forum claims it was inspired by THE SOPRANOS. These people should understand that this film is based upon a novel written by Brian Moore and that dog-kicking scene is straight from the novel, written before that TV show. Frankly, I myself am stunned that they kept that in, but it shows you how committed screenwriter Ronald Harwood and director Norman Jewison were in staying faithful to the novel, and not trying to soften Caine's character too much, which impresses me tremendously! This brings me to another, more important point. Like the novel, nothing is black and white, but shades of gray. No character represents this like Pierre Brossard! He is a war criminal guilty of terrible atrocities, and still capable of vicious behavior, yet he's a human being with complex emotions like fear, sorrow and even warmth. Brossard behaves in ways that many of us would under the same circumstances, which separates him from such over-the-top, almost inhuman characters as Hannible Lecter or Bill the Butcher. He is, instead, one of life's true villains. The story probably won't end the way most will hope, and the characters won't behave the way most will expect. This is what makes the story so unique. And this is why I believe THE STATEMENT will be a film that will stand the test of time...much like Michael Caine's 1971 film GET CARTER, which received mixed reviews upon it's first release but has become a celebrated classic over the years! We should all be thankful that there are filmakers out there still willing to make intelligent films! I know I am!