Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Adapting AGATHA CHRISTIE"




“Adapting AGATHA CHRISTIE”

Ever since the release of the BBC recent adaptation of Agatha Christie’s 1939 novel, “And Then There Were None”, television viewers and critics have been praising the production for being a faithful adaptation.  In fact these critics and fans have been in such rapture over the production that some of them have failed to noticed that the three-part miniseries was not completely faithful.  As long as the production followed Christie’s original ending, they were satisfied.

Mind you, I thought this new production, “AND THEN THERE WERE NONE” was top notch,  I have found myself growing somewhat annoyed over this attitude.  Why do so many people insist that a movie/television production should be faithful to the novel it is adapting?  I honestly believe that it should not matter.  Not really.  I believe that sometimes, it's a good thing to make some changes from the original novel (or play).  Sometimes, it's good to remain faithful to the source novel.  Sometimes, what is in a novel does not translate well to the television or movie screen.

A good example are the two adaptations of Christie’s 1941 novel, “Evil Under the Sun”.  The 1982 adaptation, which starred Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot, made some major changes in regard to characters and a minor subplot.  The 2001 television adaptation, which starred David Suchet, was somewhat more faithful . . . but not completely.  In my personal view, I believe that the Ustinov version was a lot better . . . more entertaining.  Why?  If I have to be brutally honest, I am not a big fan of Christie’s 1941 novel.  No matter how many times I tried to like it (and I tried), it simply bored me. 

In regard to the adaptations of "And Then There Were None", there are only two adaptations that I really enjoyed - Rene Clair's 1945 adaptation and this new version.  The 1945 film is actually an adaptation of the 1943 stage play written by Christie.  Because the play first opened in the middle of World War II, Christie had decided to change the ending in order to spare wartime theater goers the story’s nihilistic ending.  Two years later, director Rene Clair and 20th Century Fox decided to adapt Christie’s stage play, instead of the novel.  Several other movie adaptations – including the 1996 and the 1974 – did the same.  As far as I know, only the Russian 1987 adaptation followed Christie’s original ending. 

And how do I care about these numerous adaptations?  I have seen both the 1966 and 1974 movies.  I am not a fan of either.  Personally, I found them rather cheap.  I have never seen the 1987 Russian film.  As for the 1945 and 2015 versions . . . I am a big fan of both.  That’s right . . . both of them.  I do not care that 2015 miniseries stuck to Christie's original novel, despite some changes, and Clair’s 1945 movie did not.  I simply happen to enjoy BOTH versions.  Why?  Both versions were made with skill and style.  And I found both versions fascinating, despite the fact that they have different endings. 

I do not believe it should matter that a movie or television ALWAYS adhere to the novel it is adapting.  What should matter is whether the director, writer or both are wise enough to realize whether it is a good idea to be completely faithful or to make changes . . . for the sake of the production.  If producer John Bradbourne and director Guy Hamilton can make a superior adaptation of “Evil Under the Sun” by utilizing major changes to Christie’s original story and if there can be two outstanding versions of “AND THEN THERE WERE NONE” . . . with different endings,  I really do not see the need for any film or television production to blindly adhere to every aspect of a novel it is adapting.


Tuesday, March 29, 2016

"HAIL, CAESAR!" (2016) Photo Gallery



Below are images from the new comedy, "HAIL, CAESAR!". Written and directed by Ethan and Joel Coen, the movie stars Josh Brolin: 


"HAIL, CAESAR!" (2016) Photo Gallery











































Sunday, March 27, 2016

"THUNDERBALL" (1965) Review




"THUNDERBALL" (1965) Review

I had just viewed the 1965 Bond movie, “THUNDERBALL” for the first time in several years. And I can see why this movie is considered to be one of my all time favorite Bond flicks. But I do not think I can state why in one or two sentences. 

“THUNDERBALL” turned out to be director Terrence Young’s third and last Bond film. Most Bond fans consider it to be his least superior film, but I consider it to be his second best, following 1963’s “FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE”. The story, based upon an unfinished script called “Warhead”, co-written by Ian Fleming, Kevin McClory and Jack Whittingham. The unfinished script eventually became Fleming’s 1961 novel, “Thunderball”. This resulted in a major lawsuit between McClory and Fleming and eventually, EON Productions became dragged into it. The story is about SPECTRE’s theft of NATO nuclear warheads and how they used it to blackmail the U.S. and British government for the sum of 100,000,000 pounds. Naturally, MI-6 sends all of their “00” agents to recover the warheads before SPECTRE can carry out its threat to detonate the weapons on U.S. and British soil. Many moviegoers found the movie’s plot a little hard to buy and viewed it as part of the realm of fantasy. But considering the current obsession of terrorism and the high illegal weapons market, “THUNDERBALL” is probably one of the more relevant plots of any Bond film. 

Aside from the underwater sequences, “THUNDERBALL” turned out to be an elegant and exciting thriller with excellent drama, a solid plot that managed to avoid any major plotholes, a classy score by John Barry and a first-class cast. Sean Connery portrayed James Bond for the fourth time in this film. Thankfully, he seemed to be at his top game in this one. It is a vast improvement over his performance in 1964’s “GOLDFINGER”, in which he seemed to come off as an immature prat. And he is ably assisted by a first-class cast – Claudine Auger as Domino Duval, Adolfo Celi as villain Emile Largo (SPECTRE’s Number 2), Rik Van Nutter as CIA Agent Felix Leiter and especially Luciana Paluzzi as villainess Fiona Volpe. 

Below is a list of positive and negative aspects of the film. I have decided to start with the negative, since there was little that I did not care about the movie:

Negative:

*Rik Van Nutter as Felix Leiter – Do not get me wrong. Van Nutter’s performance as Leiter was competent and very personable. My problem was that his role was written as a “less-than-bright” sidekick of Bond’s, instead of an ally. Bond has been assisted by Leiter in other movies, but they have never come off as some dumb sidekick . . . except for Cec Linder in “GOLDFINGER”.

*Theme Song – I will not deny that the movie’s theme song, performed by Tom Jones is slightly catchy. But I also found the lyrics to be slightly sexist and off-putting.

*Underwater Sequences – Yes, the underwater sequences had threatened to drag the movie a bit. Actually, I can point out two sequences that came close to boring me – the sequence that featured Largo’s acquisition of the warheads and the final battle between Largo’s men and U.S. Navy frogmen.

Blackmail of Patricia Fearing - James Bond's attempt to seduce Shrublands Clinic nurse, Patricia Fearing, came off as disturbing and tacky. It was bad enough to watch him make attempts to kiss the very professional Ms. Fearing without her consent. But when he resorted to blackmail - willingness to conceal his near death experience with the physiotherapy machine aka "the rack" in exchange for sex - the whole situation became rather sordid. 

Positive:

*Luciana Paluzzi – Let us be honest, folks. The red-haired Paluzzi came dangerously close to stealing the picture from Connery. Like Honor Blackman before her, she radiated sexiness and a strong on-screen presence. She seemed to be even more of a threat than Emile Largo and his men.

*Adolpo Celi – What I like about Celi’s performance is that he does not come off as an over-the-top villain. He was elegant, intelligent, ruthless and egotistical. Perfect villain.

*Nassau Setting – The setting in Nassau gave the movie an exotic, yet elegant feel that really added substance to the movie.

*Villain's Goal - Many critics have claimed that the villain's goal in the movie - nuclear blackmail for money - seemed unrealistic, due to a belief there was little chance that an organization like SPECTRE could get its hands on a nuclear bomb from a NATO strategic bomber. And yet, I have never considered such a scenario unrealistic. Especially in today's world. In a way, this scenario seems much more possible than some of scenarios featured in other Bond movies from the same period.

*Dialogue – The dialogue in this movie was unusually sharp and witty. But what really appealed to me was that Connery’s puns did not come out of his mouth every other minute, as it did in his previous two movies. In fact, the movie featured what I consider to be one of Connery’s best lines during his tenure with the franchise.
 

Speaking of dialogue, below is what I consider to be some of my favorite lines:

* Moneypenny: In the conference room. Something pretty big. Every double-o man in Europe has been rushed in. And the home secretary too!
Bond: His wife probably lost her dog.


*Bond: My dear, uncooperative Domino. 
Domino: How do you know that? How do you know my friends call me Domino? 
Bond: It's on the bracelet on your ankle. 
Domino: So... what sharp little eyes you've got. 
Bond: Wait 'til you get to my teeth.

*Do you mind if my friend sits this one out? She's just dead.

*M: I've assigned you to Station "C" Canada. 
Bond: Sir, I'd respectfully request that you change my assignment to Nassau. 
M:Is there any other reason, besides your enthusiasm for water sports?

*Pat Fearing: James, where are you going? 
Bond: Oh, nowhere. I just thought I'd take a little, uh... exercise. 
Pat Fearing: You must be joking.

*But of course, I forgot your ego, Mr. Bond. James Bond, the one where he has to make love to a woman, and she starts to hear heavenly choirs singing. She repents, and turns to the side of right and virtue...[she steps on Bond's foot]... but not this one. 

I would like to conclude with this little note. In 1983, Kevin McClory – one of the original authors of “Warhead” - produced his own movie version of the story, which starred Connery as Bond. The movie, "NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN" was not exactly terrible, but it almost seemed like an overblown version of the 1965 movie.

Friday, March 25, 2016

"POLDARK" Series One (1975): Episodes One to Four

d47df5333d320948b54ae0be829dff5d



"POLDARK" SERIES ONE (1975): EPISODES ONE TO FOUR

A few years ago, I had tried a stab at the first episode of the 1975-1977 series, "POLDARK", which starred Robin Ellis. After viewing ten minutes of theatrical acting and dated photography in Episode One on You Tube, I gave up. 

Last summer, I read all of the hullaballoo surrounding this new adaptation with Aidan Turner in the lead. Utilizing Netflix, I tried my luck again with the 1975 series and ended up enjoying the first four episodes (I have yet to watch any further episodes) and quite enjoyed it. I enjoyed both versions so much that I took the trouble to purchase both the entire 1975-77 series and the 2015 series. In fact, I have decided to watch both versions simultaneously. But I am here to discuss the first four episodes of the 1975 series.

Series One of "POLDARK", which aired in 1975, is based upon Winston Graham's first four novels in the saga - 1945's"Ross Poldark: A Novel of Cornwall, 1783-1787""Demelza: A Novel of Cornwall, 1788-1790" (1946), 1950's "Jeremy Poldark: A Novel of Cornwall, 1790-1791 and 1953's "Warleggan (Poldark). Episodes One to Four seemed to be an adaptation of the first novel. The series begins with a young Ross Poldark returning home to Cornwall following military service with the British Army during the American Revolution. Ross spent the last year or two as a prisoner-of-war, unaware that he had been declared dead. He learns from a fellow coach passenger and later, his father's solicitor that Joshua Poldark had died financially broke. More bad news follow with Ross' discovery that his Uncle Charles Poldark had promised to sell his estate Nampara to the banking family, the Warleggans. And lady love, Elizabeth Chynoweth, had become engaged to Charles' son, his cousin Francis, after receiving news of his "death". The only possessions Ross has left are his father's estate, Nampara, which is now in ruins, two mines that had been closed for some time and two servants - the drunken Jud and Prudie Paynter - to help him work the estate. Even worse, the Warleggans, who have risen from being blacksmiths to bankers, seemed to be gaining financial control over the neighborhood. In Episode Two, Ross rescues a miner's daughter named Demelza Carne from a mob trying to use her dog Garrick as part of a vicious dogfight at a local fair. Taking pity on her, he decides to hire her as his new kitchen maid.

When I finally began to embark upon this series, I had no idea of its reputation as one of Britain's most beloved period dramas. I discovered that "POLDARK" was regarded just as highly in the 1970s, as "DOWNTON ABBEY" had become some thirty-five to forty years later. Mind you, I regard Julian Fellowes' series as the inferior series. My viewing of the first four episodes of this series made me finally appreciate why it was so highly regarded. It really is first-rate production. However . . . it had its problems. What movie or television production does not?

When it comes to an accurate adaptation of any novel or play, I tend to harbor ambiguous views on the matter. It depends upon how well it serves the story on screen or if it makes sense. Anyone familiar with Graham's novels know that the 1975 adaptation is not accurate. I had no problems with the production starting with Ross' stage journey to his home in Cornwall, considering that the novel started with a meeting between Ross' dying father and his Uncle Charles. I had no problems with Elizabeth's final reason for marrying Francis - to ensure that Charles Poldark would pay off her father's debts. This little scenario even included an interesting scene in which Ross had volunteered to use his loan for Wheal Leisure to pay off Mr. Chynoweth's debts in order to gain Elizabeth's hand in marriage. Fortunately, she stopped him from committing such a stupid act. But I had a problem with one major change and a few minor ones.

My biggest problem with these first four episodes of "POLDARK" centered on the circumstances that led Ross to marry his kitchen maid, Demelza Carne. Apparently, the series' producers and screenwriter Jack Pulman must have found Graham's portrayal of this situation hard to swallow and decided to change the circumstances leading to Ross and Demelza's marriage. In this version, Ross became drunk following his failure to prevent his former farmhand Jim Carter from being sentenced to prison for poaching. Demelza, who had been harboring a yen for Ross, decided to comfort him with sex. The following morning, Ross decided it would be better if Demelza no longer work at Nampara, so that he would not be tempted to have sex with her again. And what happened? Demelza eventually went to live with her father Tom Carne, now a religious zealot, and his new wife. She also discovered that she was pregnant. To make matter worse, Ross managed to convince his former love, Elizabeth Poldark, to leave his adulterous cousin Francis and live with him.

One, I found it very implausible that a man of Ross' station and time would marry his kitchen maid. He might sleep with her . . . yes. But marry her? A "responsible" man like Ross would have settled money upon Demelza, find a man of her class willing to accept her as a wife and the baby as his . . . or both. He would not marry her. As for Elizabeth's willingness to leave Francis for Ross . . . I really found this implausible. Elizabeth is too pragmatic to be willing to sacrifice her respectability to leave her husband for another man. Nor would she be willing to risk losing her son Geoffrey Charles, for Francis would have never allowed her to see the boy again. The only way this whole situation could have worked is if Ross had been in love with Demelza at the time. If he had, he would have never suggested that Elizabeth leave Francis for him.

There were other problems - minor problems - that I found in these first four episodes.h sex. The following morning, Ross decided it would be better if Demelza no longer work at Nampara, so that he would not be tempted to have sex with her again. And what happened? Demelza eventually went to live with her father Tom Carne, now a religious zealot, and his new wife. She also discovered that she was pregnant. To make matter worse, Ross managed to convince his former love, Elizabeth Poldark, to leave his adulterous cousin Francis and live with him.

One, I found it very implausible that a man of Ross' station and time would marry his kitchen maid. He might sleep with her . . . yes. But marry her? A "responsible" man like Ross would have settled money upon Demelza, find a man of her class willing to accept her as a wife and the baby as his . . . or both. He would not marry her. As for Elizabeth's willingness to leave Francis for Ross . . . I really found this implausible. Elizabeth is too pragmatic to be willing to sacrifice her respectability to leave her husband for another man. Nor would she be willing to risk losing her son Geoffrey Charles, for Francis would have never allowed her to see the boy again. The only way this whole situation could have worked is if Ross had been in love with Demelza at the time. If he had, he would have never suggested that Elizabeth leave Francis for him.

There were other problems - minor problems - that I found in these first four episodes. One episode featured Francis' violent encounter with Verity's wannabee suitor, Captain Blamey and the other, a fight between Ross and his future father-in-law, Tom Carne. And I thought Christopher Barry handled both scenes in a rather clumsy manner. Both situations seemed to be a case of "now you see it, now you don't". In Ross' fight with Carne, the 17 year-old Demelza got into the melee (which did not happen in the novel), allowing her to spout some nonsense about women's right in one of those "a woman's travails" speeches that came off as . . . well, clumsy and contrived. It did not help that actress Angharad Rees seemed to be screeching at the top of her voice at the time. In fact, screeching seemed to be the hallmark of Rees' early portrayal of the adolescent Demelza in an emotional state. Some fans have waxed lyrical over Clive Francis' portrayal of Francis Poldark. So far, I have yet to see what the big deal was about. Other than three scenes, Francis spent these first four episodes portraying a cold and rather aloof Francis. I found it difficult to get emotionally invested in the character.

Considering all of the problems I had with Episodes One-Four, one would wonder why I enjoyed "POLDARK". The series may not be perfect, but it was damn entertaining. Some have compared the production to the 1939 film, "GONE WITH THE WIND". But honestly, it reminds me of the television adaptation of John Jakes' literary trilogy, "North and South". Both the Seventies series and the "NORTH AND SOUTH" Trilogy between 1985 and 1994 share so many similarities. Both series featured their own set of flaws, entertaining melodrama, strong characterizations and a historical backdrop. In the case of "POLDARK", the historical backdrop featured Great Britain - especially Cornwall - after the American Revolution, during the last two decades of the 18th century. It is a period of which I have never been familiar - especially in Britain. I never knew that Britain's conflict with and the loss of the American colonies had such a negative impact upon the country's economic state. I had heard of the United States and France's economic struggles during this period, but I never knew about Britain's struggles. I also recently learned about the impact of the fallen tin and copper prices on Cornwall, during the 1770s and especially the 1780s. This economic struggle contributed to the slow decline of the aristocracy and the landed gentry for Cornish families like the Poldarks and the Chynoweths. 

I thought this economic depression was well-handled by the production team. Not once did the producers, Barry or Pulman rush through Ross' struggles to establish a new fortune. They also took their time in conveying the struggles of nearly everyone else in the neighborhood - the other members of the Poldark family, the Cynoweths, and especially the working-class. This struggle of the working-class manifested not only Demelza's story arc, but also that of Jim and Jinny Carter in the first three episodes. This struggled boiled down to a heartbreaking moment in which Jim was caught poaching on a local estate and sentenced to prison - despite Ross' futile efforts to help him. I noticed that although the Warleggan family loomed menacingly in the background, only one member had made at least two appearances in these first four episodes - Nicholas Warleggan. The most famous member of the family - George Warleggan - had yet to make an appearance.

And despite my complaints about the situation that led to Ross and Demelza's marriage, I must admit that the emotional journey of Ross and the other leading characters managed to grab my attention. Being familiar with Graham's novel, I am well aware that Ross' return, Elizabeth's decision to marry Francis, Ross' meeting with Demelza, the marital fallout between Elizabeth and Francis and Ross' inability to get over losing Elizabeth will have consequences down the road. I have to admit that "POLDARK" did a pretty damn good job in setting up the entire saga . . . despite a few hiccups. I found it interesting that Episode One solely featured Ross' return and his emotional reaction to Elizabeth's decision to marry Francis. He did not even meet Demelza until Episode Two

These first four episodes also set up a conflict between Demelza and Elizabeth. I have mixed feelings about this. Personally, I rather liked how Debbie Horsfield managed to set up a quasi-friendship between the two women in the new adaptation. But since Demelza and Elizabeth were probably doomed not to be friends, I see that screenwriter Jack Pulman decided to immediately go for the jugular and set up hostilities between the pair. In Episode Three, a jealous Demelza had maliciously blamed Elizabeth for Francis' infidelity, even though she had yet to meet the pair. I found this even more ironic, considering the episode also featured a minor scene in which Elizabeth actually made an attempt to emotionally reach out to Francis. He rejected her due to an assignation with some prostitute. And the whole scenario regarding Ross' suggestion that Elizabeth leave Francis and Demelza's pregnancy boiled down to a long scene in which Ross informed Elizabeth of the situation and her angry reaction. Which included calling Demelza a whore. By the end of Episode Four, Pulman and Barry had firmly established hostility between the two women.

Much has been said about the series' exteriors shot in Cornwall. Yes, they looked beautiful, wild and almost exotic for Great Britain. Not even the faded photography can hide the beauty of the Cornish landscape. I also found John Bloomfield's costume designs very attractive, but not exactly mind blowing. Also, a few of the costumes for actress Jill Townsend seemed a bit loose - especially in the first two episodes. As for the series' score written by Kenyon Emrys-Roberts . . . not exactly memorable.

I might as well come to the performances featured in Episodes One to Four. Overall, I found them pretty solid. Although I came away with the feeling that some of the cast members and director Christopher Barry thought "POLDARK" was a stage play. Yes, I found some of the performances a bit theatrical. And I have to include some of the main cast members. I have always liked the Charles Poldark character - not because he was likable. I simply found him rather colorful. And I thought actor Frank Middlemass did an excellent job in conveying this aspect of Mr. Poldark Senior. Jonathan Newth gave a solid, yet intense performance as the barely volatile Captain Blamey. Both Paul Curran and Mary Wimbush gave very colorful performances as Ross' slothful servants, Jud and Prudie Paynter. And yet, some of that color threatened to become very theatrical. On the other hand, Stuart Doughty gave a solid and subtle performance as Ross' former servant-turned-miner, Jim Carter. I could also say the same for Jillian Bailey, who portrayed Jim's wife, Jinny. By the way, fans of the 1983 miniseries, "JANE EYRE" should be able to spot Zelah Clarke (a future Jane Eyre) in a small role as one of the stagecoach passengers in the opening scene of Episode One.

There have been a great deal of praise for Angharad Rees' portrayal of Demelza Carne, Ross' kitchen maid and soon-to-be wife. And yes, I believe she earned that praise . . . at least in the second half of Episode Three and all of Episode Four. I found her performance very lively and when the scene demanded it, subtle. I thought she was outstanding in the scene that featured Demelza's seduction of Ross. However, she was at least thirty or thirty-one when she portrayed Demelza in Series One. And her portrayal of a Demelza in early-to-mid adolescence struck me as loud and over-the-top. Thankfully, the screeching ceased in the second half of Episode Three. Clive Francis' portrayal of Francis Poldark struck me as somewhat subdued or a bit on the cold side - except in two scenes. One of them featured Francis' near death inside the Wheal Leisure mine, when he feared Ross would allow him to drown. Another featured his confrontation with Captain Blamey, the sea captain who became romantically interested in Francis' sister Verity. In both cases, the actor came off as a bit theatrical. But I thought his performance in Episode Four, which featured Elizabeth's announcement that she would leave Francis, seemed more controlled, yet properly emotional at the same time.

If I have to give awards for the best two performances in these first four episodes, I would give them to Jill Townsend as Elizabeth Chynoweth Poldark and Norma Streader as Verity Poldark. It seemed to me they were the only two members of the cast who managed to avoid any theatrical acting in any of their scenes. Even when their characters were in an emotional state. One of Streader's finest moments occurred in Season Two, when she expressed her feelings about Captain Blamey in a conversation with her cousin Ross. Despite expressing Verity's emotions in a fervent manner, Streader still managed to maintain control of her performance. For me, Townsend's finest moments occurred throughoutEpisode Four. From the moment Ross suggested that Elizabeth leave Francis for good, Townsend conveyed Elizabeth's emotional journey throughout this episode - from surprise to hopeful to desperation, relief, happiness, disbelief, anger and finally bittersweet disappointment. I may not have approved the producers' decision to include a scene featuring Demelza's pregnancy and Elizabeth's decision to leave Francis. But dammit, Townsend acted her ass off and gave the best performance from the entire cast during this particular sequence. One of her best scenes featured a one-on-one conversation with Streader's Verity.

I have seen actor Robin Ellis in other movie and television productions, including 1971's "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" and 1981's "THE GOOD SOLDIER". If I were to pick his best roles, I would choose two - the passive aggressive American John Dowell in "THE GOOD SOLDIER" and of course, Ross Poldark. The producers of the series selected the right actor to portray the volatile war veteran-turned-mine owner from Graham's saga. He is Ross Poldark . . . of the 1970s that is. Granted, Ellis had his moments of theatrical acting. There were times during the first four episodes in which I had to turn down my television volume. But despite this, I thought he did an excellent job in capturing all aspects - both good and bad - of his character's personality. Two scenes featuring his performance caught my attention. Ellis seemed a bit scary and intense when he expressed Ross' reaction to being rejected by Elizabeth Chynoweth in Episode One. And I thought he gave a poignant performance in the scene that featured Demelza's seduction of Ross.

There you have it . . . my impression of the first four episodes from the 1975 series, "POLDARK". So far, this adaptation of the first novel in Winston Graham's literary series had its share of flaws. But I feel that its virtues overshadowed the former. In fact, I found myself so captivated by Episodes One to Four that I feel more than ready to continue this saga. Onward to Episode Five!

Thursday, March 24, 2016

"DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER" (1971) Photo Gallery



Below are images from "DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER", the 1971 adaptation of Ian Fleming's 1956 novel.  Directed by Guy Hamilton, the movie starred Sean Connery as James Bond 007:: 



"DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER" (1971) Photo Gallery














































Wednesday, March 23, 2016

"BLANCHE FURY" (1948) Review

1113056_300


"BLANCHE FURY" (1948) Review

I suspect that many fans of costume dramas would be fascinated to know about the series of period dramas released by the British film industry during the post-World War II era. A good number of those films were released by a British film studio known as Gainsborough Pictures. But not all of them were released through this particular studio. Some were released through other studios or production companies . . . like the 1948 period drama, "BLANCHE FURY"

Based upon the 1939 novel written by Marjorie Bowen (under the pseudonym of Joseph Stearling), "BLANCHE FURY"told the story of two lovers during the 1850s, who become embroiled in adultery, greed and murder. More importantly, Bowen's novel and the movie was inspired by a real-life case involving the 1848 murder of an estate owner and his adult by a tenant farmer trying to stave off a bad mortgage. The story surrounding "BLANCHE FURY" proved to be a bit more complicated and melodramatic.

The story begins with a beautiful impoverished gentlewoman named Blanche Fuller, who is forced to serve as a domestic companion for a wealthy woman (think of Joan Fontaine in 1940's "REBECCA"). To Blanche's great relief, she receives an invitation to become governess for the granddaughter of her rich uncle Simon Fuller. Upon her arrival, Blanche becomes romantically involved with Simon's only son, the weak-willed Laurence. She learns that her uncle and cousin have assumed the surname of Fury, which belonged to the previous owner of the estate, the late Adam Fury. She also meets Philip Thorn, Adam's illegitimate son, who serves as the estate's head groom and resents Simon and Laurence's possession of his father's estate. Blanche decides to marry Laurence for the sake of security and wealth, but becomes dissatisfied with her marriage. She and Philip also fall in love and quickly drifts into a sexual affair. Longing for possession of both Blanche and the estate, Philip drags Blanche into a plot that leads to double murder.

The first thing that caught my attention about "BLANCHE FURY" that it is a beautiful looking film. Producer Anthony Havelock-Allan, director Marc All├ęgret and cinematographers Guy Green and Geoffrey Unsworth really made use of the Technicolor process. And if I must be brutally honest, I could say the same for the costumes designed by Sophie Devine, who created some colorful outfits for leading lady, Valerie Hobson, as shown below:

IMG_20130819_0001 1115626_300

Despite my admiration for the photography and costumes, I was not that impressed by the set designs and especially the production designs. Well . . . let me take some of that back. I had no problems with John Bryan's production designs for scenes featured in smaller rooms - Philip's quarters and a private bedroom or two. But I was not impressed by scenes in large rooms - you know, the drawing room, foyer or library of the Fury manor. Quite frankly, these "sets" resembled badly made matte paintings instead of lived-in rooms. Lifeless. An individual museum room with a collection of paintings looked warmer.

But I certainly had no problems with the story. The latter begins with Blanche in the process of giving birth before it flashes back to her days as a paid companion. Thanks to the screenplay written by Audrey Erskine-Lindop and Cecil McGivern, audiences received several glimpses into Blanche's mindset - her frustrations as a paid companion and later, as wife to the weak-willed Laurence Fury; her sexual fascination with Philip Thorn and the later realization that she had bitten off more than she could chew, thanks to Philip's murder plot. For me, the most memorable scene in the entire movie featured an argument between the unfaithful Blance and the arrogant Laurence, who had insisted that she interrupt her rest to entertain a guest who had arrived with him and his father in the late evening. Blanche's blatant refusal to blindly obey her husband nearly caused me to stand up and cheer, despite the fact she had spent the last 24 hours cheating on him with Philip. I had an easier time understanding Blanche than I did Philip. He seemed to have this attitude that the Fury estate should have been given to him, despite being born on the wrong side of the blanket. And the fact that he was willing to destroy the Fuller-Fury clan (with the exception of Blanche), including Laurence's young daughter, left me feeling cold toward him in the end.

"BLANCHE FURY" featured some very solid performances, despite a penchant for some of the cast to nearly drift into slightly hammy acting. I could never accuse Valerie Hobson of overacting. Mind you, her performance did not exactly knock my socks off, but I thought she did a pretty job. Her best moments proved to be the Blanche/Laurence quarrel and Blanche's horror over Philip's arrogant behavior following the deaths of her husband and father-in-law. I had recently come across an article suggesting that Stewart Granger was not exactly the most skillful actor. Recalling his performances in movies like "KING SOLOMON'S MINES""SCARAMOUCHE" and "BHOWANI JUNCTION", I found this opinion hard to accept. But a part of me could not help but noticed that his performance in "BLANCHE FURY" - especially in the movie's last half hour - threatened to wander in the realm of the melodramatic. Otherwise, I found his performance satisfactory. Michael Gough fared just as well as Miss Hobson as Laurence Fury - especially in the memorable Blanche/Laurence quarrel scene. Though, there were moments when I thought he would go a little overboard. Sybille Binder, who portrayed the Furys' stoic housekeeper Louisa was just that . . . stoic. I thought she would play a major role in the movie. But in the end, I felt that her time was more or less wasted. Susanne Gibbs made a very charming Lavinia Fury, Laurence's young daughter. But I thought the best performance came from Walter Fitzgerald, who portrayed Blanche's no-nonsense uncle (later, father-in-law) Simon Fury. I found it rather interesting that Fitzgerald could portray such a blunt character with great subtlety. He seemed to be the only cast member who did not threatened to become melodramatic.

I may have had a few problems with "BLANCHE FURY". But if I must be honest, I found it entertaining and rather satisfying. Thanks to Marc All├ęgret's direction, Audrey Erskine-Lindop and Cecil McGivern's entertaining screenplay, Guy Green and Geoffrey Unsworth's photography and a solid cast led by Valerie Hobson and Stewart Granger, I found the movie more than satisfying.