"MAD MEN" Observations: (3.09) "Wee Small Hours"

 

After a recent re-watch of the Season Three "MAD MEN" episode called (3.09) "Wee Small Hours", I came up with the following observations: 




"MAD MEN" OBSERVATIONS: (3.09) "Wee Small Hours"

*I think that from the moment tobacco heir Lee Garner Jr. tried and failed to seduce Sterling Cooper's art director, Sal Romano; the latter was simply screwed. Even if media buyer Harry Crane had immediately informed co-owner Roger Sterling or creative director Don Draper about Garner’s demand; or if Sal had acted professionally and told not only Don, but Roger on what happened, he was screwed. The client came first. Especially clients like Lee Garner and Conrad Hilton, who were too powerful to ignore. As I recall that back in Season One, even Don had to apologize to one of the agency's clients, Rachel Menken, for his outburst. Despite the fact that she had yet to become an official client.

*Following the original airing of the episode, I had read a few posts on Betty Draper’s aborted affair with political advisor Henry Francis. I find it interesting that so many viewers and critics were disappointed that she did not go ahead with the affair. In fact, they had harshly criticized Betty for not going through with the affair . . . which I found rather odd. Even more interesting was that some of the fans had demanded to know what she really wanted. Henry had also seemed to wonder. Judging from her disappointment with her marriage to Don at the time and the realization that Henry may have simply wanted an affair, I eventually suspected that Betty had wanted a meaningful relationship with someone. That had explained the letters she exchanged with Henry, her anger at Don for keeping her in the dark about his contract problems, and her tears following the dinner with Jimmy and Bobbie Barrett in (2.03) "The Benefactor". And when she had visited Henry’s office, Betty had wrongly suspected that she would never receive one from Henry, anymore than she had received one from Don.

*Despite Betty’s remark about civil rights, Carla was one lucky woman . . . at the time. After eavesdropping on Betty's telephone call with Henry, she could have easily found herself in the same situation as Sal ended up by the episode’s end. All Betty had to do was fire her and lie to Don about her reasons behind the discharge. Unless she had feared Carla would retaliate by telling Don about Betty’s meeting with Henry. That is the only reason I could find why Carla remained employed by the episode's end.

*I still find it interesting that many had lobbied criticisms at Betty for her remark about the Civil Rights Movement. I found it interesting and a little hypocritical. One, of course Betty would make such a remark. She was a white female from a privileged background. And she was also a conservative, although a moderate one. She had called Carla "girl"when referring to the latter during a phone call with Henry. What had many fans expect? Yet, many of these same fans had made excuse after excuse for Joan’s unnecessary and racist remarks to Sheila White back in Season Two. And had conveniently forgotten that Don had been in the habit of calling Carla or other black female servants, "girl", as well.

*How many times had Don assumed an aggressive stand when a client failed to be impressed by his work? Why did he do this? Was this Don’s way of intimidating a client into accepting his work? I can still recall him pulling this stunt with Rachel Menken, which angered her in the process. He had also pulled this stunt with the client from Belle Jolie account and succeeded. Then he tried it with Conrad Hilton and failed. Ironically, many of the series' fans had reacted angrily over this incident at Hilton. I found myself feeling slightly sympathetic toward him. After all, he is the client. If he did not like Don’s presentation, he did not like it. Don’s slight temper tantrum seemed a bit uncalled for.

*Is it just me or did Peggy look slightly smug after Connie Hilton made it clear that he disapproved of Don’s presentation? Mind you, I had not been impressed by it, either. The presentation had struck me as a bit too simple and infantile. And it failed to invoke the glamour of travel, while maintaining the message of American values. At least to me.

*Pete hacking up a storm after taking a puff on a Lucky Strikes cigarette still strikes me as hysterical after ten years. So does the scene in which a frustrated Betty threw the money box at Henry.

*Don's affair with Suzanne Farrell. Even after ten years, I still fail to see the chemistry between actors Jon Hamm and Abigail Spencer. In fact, Sally Draper's teacher, Miss Farrell, seemed like a second-rate version of Rachel Mencken, but with a less stable personality. I realize that Don had wanted a meaningful relationship in his life . . . but with Suzanne Farrell? I think he could have done better than her. Especially better than someone who had recently been his daughter’s teacher. Now that I think about it, she could have done better than Don. What made their affair even more troubling was that Don was using Suzanne as some kind of drug. He had suffered rejection from Conrad Hilton, a man he was beginning to view as a parent figure, and he turned to Suzanne for comfort. Unfortunately, I suspect that Suzanne may have viewed him as something more and in the end, their relationship had ended on a surprisingly quick and unsatisfactory note . . . at least for her.

*Was Roger still a force at Sterling Cooper during the time of this episode? Judging from how British bosses had regarded him by the season's end, I rather doubt it.

"THE MOONSTONE" (1996) Review

 

"THE MOONSTONE" (1996) Review

Following my viewing of the 1997 television movie, "THE WOMAN IN WHITE", I followed up with an adaptation of another Wilkie Collins' novel, "THE MOONSTONE". Like the other adaption, this adaptation had been produced back in the 1990s as a television movie.

Based on Collins' 1868 novel, "The Moonstone: A Romance", "THE MOONSTONE" was an early modern detective story that centered around the theft of a valuable gem. A young English socialite named Rachel Verinder inherits a large Indian diamond called "a moonstone" on her eighteenth birthday. The gem is a legacy from her uncle, a corrupt British army officer named Colonel Sir John Hardcastle, who had stolen it from a religious idol, while serving in India. The diamond is of great religious significance and extremely valuable, and three Hindu priests have dedicated their lives to recovering it. Although Sir John's theft of the Moonstone had involved murder, he was never punished for his crimes. But he ended up shunned by society and his sister, Lady Julia Verinder. In retaliation for the shunning, Sir John leaves it in his will as a birthday gift to his niece Rachel, exposing her to the attentions of the gem's legal guardians.

On the night of her birthday party, Rachel wears her new present. Lady Julia, Rachel's cousin Franklin Blake and the local Dr. Candy all seem very anxious over Rachel's possession of the Moonstone. Especially since a trio of Indian jugglers had appeared at the Verinder estate. Later that night, the gem disappears from Rachel's room. Stolen. Suspicion first falls upon the three Indian jugglers. But retired Scotland Yard investigator, Sergeant Cuff believes the theft was an inside job. His suspicions fall upon one of the Verinders' servants, Rosana Spearman; and Rachel, whom he believes harbored plans to use the diamond to pay off secret debts.

I really do not know how to start this review, if I must be honest. I believe a good deal of my feelings originated from how I feel about Collins' story. I have never read his novel. But I have seen at least three adaptations of it to get a pretty good grasp of it. I must admit that director Robert Bierman and screenwriter Kevin Elyot did a very good job in setting up Collins' tale in this adaptation. They did not rush through the narrative in order to arrive on the night of the theft. And Elyot's screenplay also did an excellent job in exploring the novel's main characters - especially Rachel Verinder, her mother Lady Julia, the Verinders' major domo Gabriel Betterege and Franklin Blake. The movie also did a first-rate job in conveying the details of Blake and Cuff's investigation of the theft, along with Rachel's strange behavior. But once their investigation hit a dead end and the story moved on to the third act . . . I started having problems with the movie.

I could blame Wilkie Collins and his novel. Or I could blame the movie's screenwriter for trying to adhere as closely to Collins' story as possible. But after Franklin resumed the investigation of the Moonstone's theft a year after the incident, "THE MOONSTONE" seemed to be piled with nothing but contrived writing. I can only assume that Collins had wanted to deliver a surprise twist to his readers when he revealed who had taken the gem. I was certainly surprised when I first saw this film. And after three or four years, I have remained . . . dissatisfied with the revelation. I mean . . . seriously? And the series of events that led to the theft also struck me as contrived. But that was nothing in compare to the events that led to the Moonstone's final fate. To this day, a part of me wishes that the filmmakers had changed some of Collins' narrative for this movie.

At least I had no problem with the film's production values. Sarah Greenwood's production designs struck me as first-rate in her re-creation of Great Britain during the late 1840s. I was especially impressed by her creation of London during that period. Philip Robinson's art direction, the film's Art Department and John Daly's cinematography ably contributed to her work. I especially enjoyed Daly's photography of the marshes in Norfolk that served as the setting for one very memorable scene. I also admired James Keast's costume designs. His costumes struck me as a near accurate reflection of the film's late 1840s setting. I must admit that I found those costumes for the upper-class female characters a bit on the dull side. Was this dullness a direct reflection of elite women's fashion of that period? Perhaps someone can answer that for me.

Both Greg Wise and Keeley Hawes gave solid performances as the movie's romantic leads - Franklin Blake and Rachel Verinder. I cannot deny that the pair possessed some semblance of screen chemistry, especially during the film's first half hour. But they never really had the opportunity to develop that chemistry, since their characters spent most of the film at odds with one another or apart. The movie also featured solid performances from the likes of Scott Handy, Patricia Hodge, Anton Lesser, Peter Jeffrey, Paul Brooke, a menacing performance from Terence Hardiman as the slightly sinister Col. Sir John Hardcastle, and a rather entertaining performance from Kacey Ainsworth as the Verinders' holy roller cousin Drusilla Clark. Which leads me to my favorite performances in the movie.

One of those performances came from Peter Vaughan, who portrayed the Verinder family's steadfast majordomo, Gabriel Betterege. Not only did Vaughan did an excellent job in conveying Betterege's intelligence, but also the character's sharp humor. I really enjoyed his performance. Another performance that impressed me was Antony Sher, who portrayed the botanical loving former Scotland Yard detective, Sergeant Richard Cuff. I believe real life Victorian police detective Jack Whicher had inspired Collins' creation of Cuff. But Sher injected a touch of humorous eccentricity to the character that made his performance so enjoyable to me. One last performance had impressed me and it came from Lesley Sharp, who portrayed one of the Verinders' maids, Rosanna SpearmanR. Sharp gave an etheral, yet intense performance as the lovesick Rosanna, which left a haunting cloud over the story before the last reel.

Would I regard this 1996 television movie as the best adaptation of Wilkie Collins' novel? Hmmm . . . perhaps not. I have seen other adaptations that had delved into the narrative with a bit more detail. And the ending of this film seemed to rush a bit toward the end. However, I did managed to enjoy "THE MOONSTONE" very much. And thanks to Robert Bierman's direction, Kevin Elyot's screenplay and excellent performances from a cast led by Greg Wise and Keeley Hawes, I would have no problems doing a rewatch of this film over and over again.

"DICKINSON" Season One (2019) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from Season One of "DICKINSON", the Apple TV+ series about the early years of poet Emily Dickinson.  Created by Alena Smith, the series starred Hailee Steinfeld as the famous poet:

"DICKINSON" SEASON ONE (2019) Photo Gallery

  

Favorite "WANDAVISION" (2021) Episodes

 

Below is a list of my favorite episodes from "WANDAVISION", the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)/Disney Plus limited series. Created by Jac Schaeffer, the series starred Elizabeth Olsen and Paul Bettany as Wanda Maximoff aka Scarlet Witch and Vision:

FAVORITE "WANDAVISION" (2021) EPISODES

1. (1.06) "All-New Halloween Spooktacular!" - Disturbances on Halloween separate Wanda Maximoff aka Scarlet Witch from her synthezoid lover/"husband" Vision, who looks into the anomalous activity in Westview during the late 1990s/early 2000s.

2. (1.04) "We Interrupt This Program" - Following her resurrection during the Blip, S.W.O.R.D. Agent Monica Rambeau is tasked with a special assignment in Westview regarding sentient weapons and goes missing.

3. (1.08) "Previously On" - Another witch in Westview named Agatha Harkness forces Wanda to embark upon a troubling journey, revisiting her past for insight into her present and future.

4. (1.03) "Now in Color" - Wanda's pregnancy affects her powers as she and Vision prepare for an accelerated delivery in the 1970s.

5. (1.09) "The Series Finale" - While Wanda battles Agatha, Vision fights his counterpart, White Vision, who was created by S.W.O.R.D. Meanwhile, the agency's director, Tyler Hayward, launches an attack on Westview.

"GODZILLA" (2014) Review

 

"GODZILLA" (2014) Review

"Godzilla again?" That had been my reaction when I learned about a new Godzilla movie to be released for the summer of 2014. The last movie about the iconic Japanese monster had been released some 16 years earlier and was met with a good deal of derision. Mind you, I rather liked the 1998 film, but I did not love it. But . . . I was willing to give this new film a chance.

"GODZILLA" 2014 begins with a montage of atomic test bombings in the Pacific Ocean by the U.S. Navy. In the last montage, a large creature emerges from the ocean depths. The story immediately shifts to the Philippines Islands in 1999, when a pair of scientists named Ishiro Serizawa and Vivienne Graham investigate a large skeleton discovered inside a collapsed mine. They also discover two egg-shaped pods. The broken one leaves a trail leading to the sea. The Janjira nuclear plant in Japan experiences unusual seismic activity. The plant's American-born supervisor, Joe Brody, sends his wife Sandra and a team of technicians into the reactor to check the sensors. When the team is inside, an explosion occurs, threatening to release radiation to the outside. Sandra and her team are unable to escape and the plant collapses into ruin. The disaster is attributed to an earthquake. But Brody suspects otherwise and spends a good number of years investigating the disaster.

Fifteen years later, Brody's son, Ford, has become a U.S. Navy bomb disposal officer, living in San Francisco with his wife and son. When Brody is arrested for trespassing at the Janjira exclusion zone, Ford is forced to travel to Japan. Convinced of a cover-up of the true cause of the disaster, Brody convinces Ford to accompany him to their old home to retrieve vital seismic data he had recorded before the plant disaster. Father and son discover that Janjira is not contaminated with radiation, unlike the official report. After recovering the data, they are arrested and taken to a facility containing a massive chrysalis within the plant's ruins. As they watch, a colossal winged creature emerges and escapes. After Brody is wounded by the creature, he dies from his wounds. Ford, Serizawa and Graham join a U.S. Navy strike force led by Admiral William Stenz on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Saratoga to track the creature, which has been labeled as a MUTO (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism). Serizawa and Graham reveal that only one creature can stop MUTO, an ancient alpha predator known as Godzilla. When the MUTO causes the wreck of a Russian submarine, Godzilla emerges to feed off the sub's radiation and pursue MUTO. More bad news arrives when Stenz, Serizawa and Graham learn about the emergence of a female MUTO in Las Vegas. The two scientists suspect that the MUTO from Japan is on his way to breed with his female counterpart.

Well, this was a first . . . at least for me. Godzilla as the main protagonist? That is exactly how writers Max Borenstein and David Callaham portrayed the monster. I suspect this has been done before in previous Godzilla films. Since I have never seen one, aside from the 1998 flick in which he was clearly the antagonist, this was news to me. Did I like the movie? Hmmmm . . . yes and no.

Let me explain. There are aspects of "GODZILLA" that I liked. The cast was pretty decent. Bryan Cranston chewed the scenery during his appearances in the movie's first half hour. Usually, this would bother me, but for once I welcomed his over-the-top acting for I thought it gave the movie a lot of energy. One would think I dislike the rest of the cast. Honestly, I did not. I enjoyed Aaron Johnson-Taylor's subtle portrayal of Brody's more reserved and equally intense son, Ford. Actually, I thought Cranston and Johnson-Taylor balanced each other very well and it seemed a pity that the elder Brody had been killed off after a half hour. Elizabeth Olsen, who portrayed Ford's more ebullient wife. Like Cranston, she also balanced very well with Johnson-Taylor. Unfortunately, the two younger stars spent most of the movie apart from each other. Ken Watanabe and David Strathairn gave solid performances as Admiral Stenz, who was willing to resort to anything to get rid of MUTO (and perhaps Godzilla) and Dr. Ishiro Serizawa, who believed that the only way to solve the situation regarding MUTO and Godzilla was to let them fight it off.

"GODZILLA" also benefited from some first-class photography, thanks to cinematographer Seamus McGarvey's stunning work. I was especially impressed by one sequence featuring the HALO jump of Ford and a team of Army soldiers into San Francisco in order to prevent a missing warhead from detonating, as shown in this image:

There were some sequences in the movie that I enjoyed, including the original accident at the Janjira plant, the first MUTO's emergence in Japan and especially the arrival of Godzilla and the first MUTO in Honolulu. Unfortunately, "GODZILLA" is not perfect.

I feel that "GODZILLA" had lacked two qualities that made the 1998 movie so likable for me - a more centralized story and more colorful characters. I hate to say this, but Borenstein and Callaham's story could have been a little more tighter. Actually, it could have been a lot more tighter. It seemed to be all over the map. Although the movie more or less ended in San Francisco, it took a long time for the story to arrive at that location. Gareth Edwards' lackluster direction did not help. Also, I was not that impressed by the writers' use of Godzilla as the main protagonist. It just did not work for me . At least not now. Perhaps one day, I might learn to embrace the concept. My problem is I found myself wondering why Godzilla went after the MUTOs in the first place. I doubt it he went after them for the sake of the human race.

And this movie lacked some serious characterization. Characters like Admiral Stenz, Doctors Serizawa and Graham were tight-lipped professionals, who struggled to keep their emotions in check. But I did not find them particularly interesting or found myself caring about their fates. I also felt that Juliette Binoche (who portrayed Cranston's doomed wife) and Sally Hawkins (Dr. Vivienne Graham) were simply wasted in this movie. I realize that many critics did not seem to care for Aaron Johnson-Taylor. I felt otherwise. I have always liked him a lot as an actor. But in this film, he had a rather subtle screen presence and needed someone more colorful to balance his quiet persona. He had the explosive Bryan Cranston and an emotional Elizabeth Olsen. But Cranston's character had been killed off after the first half hour. And Olson had very few scenes with him. In the end, the writers failed to provide Johnson-Taylor with more colorful characters to balance his style . . . something that Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich managed to do for Matthew Broderick in the 1998 film.
Did I bother to purchase a copy of "GODZILLA" when it was first released on DVD? Yeah, I did. It was far from perfect, but I cannot deny that I liked it. It was certainly great for a rainy afternoon.

"BACK TO HANNIBAL: THE RETURN OF TOM SAWYER AND HUCKLEBERRY FINN" (1990) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "BACK TO HANNIBAL: THE RETURN OF TOM SAWYER AND HUCKLEBERRY FINN", the 1990 Disney Channel television sequel to Mark Twain's 1876 novel, "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" and his 1885 novel, "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn". Directed by Paul Krasny, the television movie starred Raphael Sbarge and Mitchell Anderson: 

"BACK TO HANNIBAL:  THE RETURN OF TOM SAWYER AND HUCKLEBERRY FINN" (1990) Photo Gallery