"LOST" RETROSPECT: (4.08) "Meet Kevin Johnson"

 

"LOST" RETROSPECT: (4.08) "Meet Kevin Johnson"

Years ago, I had written an ARTICLE about the "LOST" Season Four episode, (4.08) "Meet Kevin Johnson". Instead of discussing the episode itself, my article focused on the media and fandom's reactions to it and especially their reactions to the Michael Dawson character, portrayed by Harold Perrineau. But after my recent rewatch, I decided to focus on the episode itself.

"Meet Kevin Johnson", in my personal opinion, was a very good episode. In fact, I consider it one of the better episodes from the series' fourth season and the second-best one that focused on Michael. Like Season Two's (2.07) "The Other 48 Days" and Season Six's (6.15) "Across the Sea", "Meet Kevin Johnson" featured a continuous flashback - the third longest in the show's history. Yet, screenwriters Elizabeth Sarnoff and Brian K. Vaughan had created something interesting with the episode's narrative. The continuous flashback was book-ended with present day scenes aboard Charles Widmore's freighter, the Kahana and on the island. I found this very original. But more importantly, I believe this episode featured one of Perrineau's best performances in the series, good enough for an Emmy nomination that sadly, never materialized.

My only complaint regarding "Meet Kevin Johnson" focused on its timeline. It had occurred to me that Benjamin Linus, the Others' leader, had sent Tom Friendly to New York City to recruit Michael, between the events of Season Three episodes, (3.13) "The Man from Tallahassee" and (3.19) "The Brig". Not only did I find this time period rather slim for Tom to travel to the United States and return in time for Season Three's last four or five episodes, I found myself wondering how Tom had left the island . . . following John Locke's destruction of the Others' submarine in "The Man from Tallahassee". Hmmm. It also occurred to me that roughly a month had passed between Michael and Walt's departure in the Season Two finale, (2.23-2.24) "Live Together, Die Alone" and Michael's return aboard the Kahana in (3.17) "Catch-22". I cannot help but feel that the episode's timeline may have been sketchy at best.

But I want to discuss something else about "Meet Kevin Johnson". In my previous article about the episode, I had discussed what I felt were the hypocritical reactions to Michael's character in this episode and throughout the series. After viewing "Meet Kevin Johnson", I recognized numerous instances of hypocrisy from the characters. In fact, the level of hypocrisy featured in the episode struck me as amazing.

I had a good deal of issues regarding Ben and Tom's exploitation of Michael’s guilt for killing Ana-Lucia and Libby. I realize both men had wanted to recruit him to help deal with those traveling aboard the Kahana. But every time Michael had brought up the kidnapping of his son Walt Lloyd, both men had failed to express any remorse for it. Tom had responded to Michael's accusation by gaslighting the latter over Ana-Lucia and Libby's deaths. I guess exploiting Michael's guilt was more important to him than acknowledging his own over the kidnapping. I also believe that recruiting Michael to serve as Ben's spy would have been easier for Tom if he had simply acknowledged the kidnapping and expressed remorse for it.

Ben had also gaslighted Michael. First, he had ordered Tom to instruct Michael to kill the Kahana crew. Ben even provided a package for the deed - a bomb - to Michael. Upon meeting the murderous Martin Keamy and his mercenaries, Michael had programmed the bomb to set it off. The bomb proved to be fake. Apparently, Ben wanted to prove to Michael that he was a good guy and incapable of killing others. I found this incredibly hypocritical, considering by this point, Ben already had already murdered his father years ago and God only knows how many others. And why on earth did he order Tom to instruct Michael to kill the Kahana crew in the first place? Why deliver a bomb - namely a fake one - to Michael? What made this whole situation so ironic is that in the end, Ben (with Keamy's help) proved to be the one responsible for the Kahana's destruction, along with the deaths of the remaining Kahana crew and Michael, when he killed Keamy inside the island’s Orchid Station. Hell, it took Ben another six years to finally express any remorse over Walt’s kidnapping.

Then we have Oceanic survivors Sayid Jarrah and James "Sawyer" Ford. Both men had condemned Michael for his actions in late Season Two, when they discovered he was among the Kahana crew. When Ben had informed some of the Oceanic castaways at the Others' abandoned barracks that Michael was serving as his spy aboard the Kahana, Sawyer had accused Michael of killing Libby and Ana-Lucia in order to free Ben and get off the island. Period. Nothing else. Upon discovering Michael's presence aboard the Kahana and that he was serving as Ben's spy, Sayid condemned Michael for being a traitor to the Oceanic castaways, when the latter led Sawyer, Jack Shephard, Hugo "Hurley" Reyes, and Kate Austen into a trap set by the Others in "Live Together, Die Alone". Sayid even turned Michael over to the freighter’s captain.

And yet . . . not once did Sawyer or Sayid ever mention Walt. Not . . . fucking . . . once. I found it odd that Sawyer had forgotten that Michael's actions had stemmed from his desire to rescue Walt from the Others’ clutches. I find this odd and very hypocritical, considering he had called himself killing Tom in retaliation for Walt's kidnapping. What made this reasoning dubious to me is that Sawyer never went after Ben for the kidnapping . . . the very man who had ordered the kidnapping in the first place. As for Sayid . . . he had learned about Naomi Dorrit's lies, witnessed Daniel Faraday's lies and Miles Strume's hostility on the island. Aboard the Kahana, Sayid had witnessed Captain Gault and other crewmen engaged in strange behavior. He also met Keamy and his fellow mercenaries aboard the Kahana. This should have made Sayid more leery of the Kahana crew. Instead, he became outraged over Michael working for Ben and exposed his fellow Oceanic castaway to the Kahana’s captain. He and accused Michael of not only working for Ben, but also for being a traitor to his fellow castaways. It finally occurred to me that ever since Shannon Rutherford's death in early Season Two, Sayid had developed a toxic obsession and hostility toward Ben Linus - which finally spilled over in late Season Five. It also occurred to me that neither Sawyer or Sayid had ever mentioned Walt or the kidnapping. Nor did either of them ever expressed concern or curiosity about his post-island life. Come to think of it, even Michael had his own hypocritical moment, when he accused Ben of being responsible for Ana-Lucia and Libby's deaths. I believe he wanted to blame Ben for driving him into committing his crimes in (2.20) "Two for the Road".

As I had stated earlier, I believe "Meet Kevin Johnson" was a pretty good episode and probably one of the better ones from Season Four of "LOST". I also noticed the episode reeked with hypocrisy - especially from characters like Benjamin Linus, Tom Friendly, Sayid Jarrah and James "Sawyer" Ford. I do not know if anyone else would regard their behavior and comments as hypocritical or view this all as the screenwriters' questionable writing. Oh well . . . I know how I feel.

"THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS" (2009) Review

 

"THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS" (2009) Review

Grant Heslov directed this comedic adaptation of Jon Ronson’s 2004 book about the U.S. Army's exploration of New Age concepts and the potential military applications of the paranormal. The movie starred George Clooney as one of the participants in this program and Ewan McGregor, who portrayed a journalist who stumbles across the story, while reporting on businesses with military contracts in Iraq.

One of the surprising aspects about "THE MEN WHO STARED AT GOATS" is that its story is based upon fact. According to author Jon Ronson, there was actually a similar unit actually existed within the U.S. Army called the Stargate Project. The film featured a different name for the units . . . and had probably changed some of the facts, but the Army did explore New Age concepts and military applications of the paranormal. "THE MEN WHO STARED AT GOATS" followed McGregor’s character, a journalist with the Ann Arbor Daily Telegram named Bob Wilton. After an emotional divorce from an unfaithful wife, Bob goes to Kuwait to report on the Iraq War. He stumbles upon an interesting story when he meets a Special Forces operator named Lyn Cassady during a trip across the Iraqi countryside. During the road trip, Cassady reveals his participation in an Army unit that trained to develop a range of par psychological skills by using New Age concepts. The unit ended up being named the New Earth Army. While the pair endured a journey that included encounters with a gang of Iraqi criminals, a kidnapped victim of the criminals, the head of a private security firm named Todd Nixon and two rival groups of American contractors who engage in a gunfight against each other in Ramadi.

During Wilton and Cassady’s journey, the latter revealed the story behind the creation of the New Earth Army and its founder, a Vietnam War veteran named Bill Django. The latter had traveled across America in the 1970s for six years to explore a range of New Age movements (including the Human potential movement) after being wounded during the Vietnam War. Django used these experiences to create the New Earth Army. Django’s recruits ended up being nicknamed "Jedi Warriors". By the 1980s, two of Django's best recruits were Cassady and Larry Hooper, who developed a lifelong rivalry with the former because of their opposing views of how to implement the First Earth philosophy. Cassady had wanted to emphasize the positive side of the teachings, whereas Hooper was more interested in the negative side of the philosophy. Wilton and Cassady’s journey ended when they locate a military base in the middle of the desert.

I must admit that I had not in a big hurry to see "THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS" when it first hit the theaters ten years ago. In fact, I never had any intention of seeing it. The only reason I went to see the movie in the first place was that I was desperate for something to watch. The Fall 2009 movie season had seemed pretty dim to me. Aside from "THE INFORMANT", I had difficulty finding a movie that appealed to me. And what about "THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS"? Did I find it appealing? Honestly? It was not the best movie I had seen in 2009. But I must admit that thanks to Grant Heslov’s direction and Peter Straughan’s screenplay, I found the movie rather humorous in an off-kilter manner. Some of the most humorous scenes featured:

*Wilton and Cassady’s flight from a group of Iraqi criminals

*The "Battle of Ramadi" between two American private security armies

*Bill Django’s six year exploration of New Age movements

*The results of Wilton and Django’s spiking of the Army base food with LSD.

At first, the movie’s approach to New Age religion and movements seemed inconsistent. The first half of the film treated the subject as a joke. However, once Wilton and Cassady reached the base housing the PSIC, Straughan’s script treated the subject with a lot more respect. It took me a while to realize that the story was told from Bob Wilton’s point-of-view. It only seemed natural that he would first view the New Earth Army and New Age beliefs as a joke. But after time spent with Cassady and later Django at the PSIC base, Wilton naturally developed a newfound respect for both topics. The movie also provided a slightly pointed attack upon the U.S. military presence in Iraq. Normally, I would have cringed at such protesting in a comedy. Fortunately, Heslov used humor – and very sharp humor at that – to mock American presence in the Middle Eastern country.

I think that Lyn Cassady might turn out to be one of my favorite roles portrayed by George Clooney. One, he gave a hilarious performance. And two, he also did a marvelous job in infusing Cassady’s role with a mixture of militaristic machismo and wide-eyed innocence. And despite his questionable American accent, I was very impressed by Ewan McGregor’s poignant performance as the lovelorn Michigan journalist (his wife left him for his editor), who traveled to Iraq to prove his bravery to his former wife . . . only to discover something more unique. Another joyous addition to the cast turned out to be Jeff Bridges, who gave a wonderfully off-kilter performance as Cassady’s mentor and founder of the New Earth Army, Bill Django. And Larry Hooper, the one man allegedly responsible for bringing down Django’s New Earth Army, turned out to be another one of Kevin Spacey’s deliciously villainous roles. The movie also featured performances that ranged from solid to zany from the likes of Stephen Lang, Robert Patrick, Nick Offerman, Waleed Zuaiter, Rebecca Mader and Glen Morshower.

"THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS" managed to earn less than $70 million dollars at the box office. Because it only had a budget of $24 million, it still managed to earn a small profit. However, it was not a hit film and it received mixed reviews. Perhaps the audience found the film's subject a bit hard to swallow. There is also the possibility that film goers found screenwriter Peter Straughan’s script use of constant flashbacks regarding the New Earth Army rather confusing. Personally, I rather enjoyed the movie. It never became a big favorite of mine, but I still found it entertaining and interesting.

"JANE EYRE" (1970) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "JANE EYRE", the 1970 movie and television adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's 1847 novel. Directed by Delbert Mann, the movie starred George C. Scott and Susannah York:

"JANE EYRE" (1970) Photo Gallery

"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