"THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" (1956) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from the 1956 Cecil B. DeMille epic, "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS". The movie starred Charlton Heston, Yul Brenner, Anne Baxter and Yvonne DeCarlo:

"THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" (1956) Photo Gallery

"Forgiven Too Quickly"

 

"FORGIVEN TOO QUICKLY"

I just finished watching the Season One episode of "LEGENDS OF TOMORROW" called (1.09) "Left Behind". I have a major issue with this episode and it deals with the character of Sara Lance aka White Canary.

This problem had originated with the previous episode, (1.09) "Night of the Hawk". In that episode, the Legends team went to a small town in Oregon 1958 to investigate a series of murders tied to Season One's major antagonist, Vandal Savage. They discover that Savage was using an Nth metal meteorite - the same material that transformed Kendra Sanders aka Hawkgirl and Carter Hall aka Hawkman into meta humans, and Savage into an immortal - to create humanoid bird-like creatures. The team managed to create a serum to cure those victims of Savage's experiment. Unfortunately, before all of them could leave 1958; Mick Rory aka Heatwave had arrived to attack the ship. Mick, who had ended up in the clutches of the Time Masters, had been brainwashed into serving the latter group in order to hunt down the Legends' leader, Rip Hunter for attempting to use time travel to save his murdered family. Mick's attack forced most of the team to leave Dr. Ray Palmer aka the Atom, Kendra and Sara behind in 1958. They remained stranded in time for two years.



So what happened? During the years between 1958 and 1960, Ray and Kendra continued their pose as a college professor and his wife. And what did Sara Lance do? Instead of remaining in close proximity with Ray and Kendra, she had decided to return to the Himalayas and Nanda Parbat in order to resume her association with the League of Assassins and her role as an assassin. Sara did not suffer from amnesia or anything like that. When the Legends - along with Ray and Kendra - traveled to Nanda Parbat, they assumed that she needed to be rescue. But Sara was not suffering from amnesia. She immediately recognized the other Legends and turned them over to her leader, Ra's al Ghul, as trespassers to be executed. Rip invoked the trial-by-combat ritual to save the team and named Kendra as their champion. Sara was named as the League's champion. Just as Kendra was able to get to Sara, Mick arrived as Chronos and the team was forced to capture him with Ra's permission. He allowed them to leave, with Mick as their prisoner. Sara, on the other hand, did not become a prisoner. Dr. Martin Stein aka Firestorm had a ready-made excuse for her.

It occurred to me that the writers really went out of their to give Sara Lance an excuse for betraying the other Legends to the League of Assassins in "Left Behind". The transcript written by Beth Schwartz and Grainne Godfree claimed that those two years Sara had spent with the League - between 1958 and 1960 - had led her to lose sight of her identity and all of the character developed she had acquired with Team Arrow and later, during her early months with the Legends.

I say bullshit to that. Sara had clear memories of the Legends when they arrived at Nanda Parbat in 1960. Also, Dr. Stein's explanation only gave her an "excuse" for her decision to betray the team to Ra's al Ghul. Stein's words did not excuse or explain what happened back in 1958. No one bothered to question why Sara's first instinct after getting stranded in 1958 was to rejoin the League of Assassins. "Left Behind" revealed a montage of Ray and Kendra settling down in that Oregon town and her, getting bored in their apartment. You mean to say, Sara never considered going back to school? After all, she was roughly 19 or 20 years old when she and Oliver Queen were shipwrecked on Lian Yu following the sinking of the Queen's Gambit in "ARROW". Sara could have continued her college education. She certainly had the brains to continue this path. Instead, Sara took the easier path and resumed her role as an assassin for the League of Assassins - but only in a different period in time. And her second instinct was to betray the other Legends to the League, despite knowing who they were. Yet, the other Legends were very quick to forgive her for her actions, in compare to Mick Rory aka Chronos, thanks to Schwartz and Godfree's transcript.

The hypocrisy of this whole scenario still strikes me as truly amazing after four years. I am not saying that the Legends should have also quickly forgiven Mick. Nor am I saying that they should have never forgiven him or Sara. But the Legends should not have quickly forgiven Sara either. They should have confronted her about her decision to betray them to Ra's al Ghul. They should have been just as reluctant to forgive her as they were reluctant to forgive Mick. The handling of Sara Lance's character in "Left Behind" was one of the few cases of bad writing I have ever encountered on "LEGENDS OF TOMORROW".

"MANK" (2020) Review

 

"MANK" (2020) Review

When it comes to biopics about Hollywood history, I must admit that I have a slight addiction to them. I really enjoy reading about Hollywood history. And I especially enjoy reading about the industry's so-called "Golden Age". So, when I learned about the upcoming release of "MANK", a biopic about Hollywood screenwriter, Herman J. Mankiewicz, I was pretty eager to see it.

However . . . I never got the chance to watch "MANK" in movie theaters during the fall/winter of 2020-2021. "MANK" had the bad luck to be released while the entire world was in the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although Netflix had released the film in theaters for a limited period in November 2020, the streaming service/production company eventually released it on its streaming service the following month. Because of this, a good number of months had passed before I had eventually watched it on television.

"MANK" began in 1940, when the then young wunderkind Orson Welles hired veteran screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz to write the screenplay for his new movie, "CITIZEN KANE". Unfortunately, Mankiewicz is in Victorville, CA; recovering from a broken leg he had sustained in a car crash. With the assistance of his secretary Rita Alexander, he becomes aware of the similarities between the movie's main character and newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. This awareness not only inspired Mankiewicz to work on Welles' screenplay, but also led him to recall his history with Hearst, the latter's mistress, Marion Davies; and the smear campaign against Upton Sinclair's 1934 California gubernatorial campaign.

Since "MANK" is not a documentary, but a historical drama, I knew that its narrative would not be completely accurate. However, I do believe that screenwriter Jack Fincher and his brother, director David Fincher, took a lot of liberties in regard to historical accuracies. Perhaps too much. Yes, the movie featured historical accuracies that included Mankiewicz's car accident and broken leg, his employment with both Paramount Pictures and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Upton Sinclair's bid for Governor of California in 1934 and of course, Mankiewicz's collaboration with Welles and John Houseman on "CITIZEN KANE".

However, the main problem with "MANK" is that Jack Fincher tried to connect the efforts to undermine Upton Sinclair's gubernatorial campaign with Mankiewicz's screenplay for "CITIZEN KANE". And it did not exactly work. It failed to work due to Mankiewicz's political beliefs. Considering that Sinclair had ran for governor as a Democrat, it seemed implausible that Mank would have been that upset over the state's business leaders - which included movie studio chief Louis B. Mayer, studio producer Irving Thalberg; and newspaper magnates like Hearst and Harry Chandler - going out of their way to undermine Sinclair's campaign. Mankiewicz's politics tend to skewer toward conservative, except when it came to fascism.

It seems quite obvious that Jack Fincher needed an explanation for why Mankiewicz had been willing to write "CITIZEN KANE", a scathing portrait of William Randolph Hearst. So he invented one. But you know what? I find myself wondering what topic had really caught the Finchers' attention - Mankiewicz's connection with Hearst, Davies and "CITIZEN KANE"; or the 1934 California gubernatorial election. Because honestly . . . it seemed as if both screenwriter and director were more interested in the latter. If that was the case, then the Fincher brothers should have solely focused the movie's topic on the election.

I have another quibble about "MANK". One I found some of the dialogue in the film's first half hour a bit too stylized for my tastes. In one early scene, it seemed as if the Finchers had tried too hard to recapture a West Coast version of the Algonquin Round Table. Also, why did the Finchers shot this film in black-and-white? What was the point? Because to me, this decision to film in black-and-white seemed like another attempt at a homage to Hollywood's Golden Age via a gimmick. And I am getting weary of gimmicks - especially unnecessary ones in Hollywood productions.

Otherwise, I did not have a problem with "MANK". There are at least three reasons why I ended up enjoying this film. One, the movie featured a first-rate character study of Herman J. Mankiewicz. I have read a good deal about him. Granted, the movie was not completely honest in the writer's characterization. The latter's political beliefs would have never led him to get upset, let alone outraged over the campaign against Upton Sinclair. However, David Fincher's screenplay did a very admirable job in capturing Mankiewicz's other traits - including his wit, his addictions and air of weariness. If I must be frank, I believe Gary Oldman's superb performance achieved this even more than the Finchers' screenplay and direction.

Two, although I found the creation of "CITIZEN KANE" rather interesting, it did not strike me as particularly unique. Well . . . I take that back. "MANK" did tell this story specifically from the screenwriter's point-of-view. The 1999 HBO film, "RKO 281", told this story mainly from Orson Welles' point-of-view. However, the movie's depiction of Hollywood's connection to California's 1934 gubernatorial election struck me as the film's more interesting and original aspect. This was especially apparent in scenes that featured a montage of the phony newsreels criticizing Sinclair and the election's final night.

One aspect of "MANK" really impressed me - namely the performances featured in the film. They either ranged from competent performances from the likes of Tom Pelphrey as Joseph Mankiewicz, Charles Dance as William Randolph Hearst, Ferdinand Kingsley as Irving Thalberg, Joseph Cross as Charles Lederer, Toby Leonard Moore as David Selznick, Sam Troughton as John Houseman, Bill Nye as Upton Sinclair and Arliss Howard as Louis B. Mayer. Mind you, I believe there were times when Howard's performance threatened to become a bit too theatrical. But I still enjoyed it. I was very impressed by the performances from Tuppence Middleton as Sara Mankiewicz, Tom Burke as Orson Welles and Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies. As much as Seyfriend's performance impressed me, I do not believe she had deserved an Oscar or any other acting nomination for her performance. I do not believe her performance was that exceptional.

There were a handful of performances that I really enjoyed. I thought Jamie McShane gave a very emotional performance as test director Shelly Metcalf, who shot the anti-Sinclair newsreels. Frankly, Lily Collins' performance as Mankiewicz's no-nonsense secretary Rita Alexander impressed me a lot more than Seyfriend's performance. And I thought she and the leading man had managed to create a superb screen chemistry. Although I believed that Seyfriend's acting nominations were undeserved, I cannot say the same for Gary Oldman's performance as Herman J. Mankiewicz. I thought he was superb as the screenwriting icon agonizing over his earlier apathy toward the governor's election, while struggling over his alcoholism and creation of the "CITIZEN KANE" screenplay. He truly deserved his acting nominations - especially in one scene in which the main character went into a drunken rant against the Hollywood machine and Hearst.

"MANK" was definitely not the best movie of 2020. Perhaps it was one of the better ones. I still believe it could have been a better film if David and Jack Fincher had not attempted to connect the creation of "CITIZEN KANE" with California's 1934 governor election. But its re-creation of the latter proved to be one of the film's highlights. And the movie also benefited from excellent direction from David Fincher and excellent performances from a cast led by the always superb Gary Oldman. Honestly, I would have no qualms about buying a DVD copy of this film.

"WITHOUT REMORSE" (2021) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "WITHOUT REMORSE", Amazon Prime's 2021 adaptation of Tom Clancy's 1993 novel. Directed by Stefano Sollima, the movie stars Michael B. Jordan:



"WITHOUT REMORSE" (2021) Photo Gallery