"SPIDER-MAN" (2002) Review

 

"SPIDER-MAN" (2002) Review

I have been a major fan of the Marvel Comics character, Spider-Man, for a long time.  When I was a kid, I used to read "The Amazing Spider-Man" comic strip from my local newspaper on a daily basis. I was also a regular viewer of the reruns from the 1967-70 animated series "SPIDER-MAN" and the 1978-79 television series, "THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN", which starred Nicholas Hammond. So when Columbia Pictures released a movie version of the comic book web crawler twenty years ago, I was a happy camper.

Ironically, I have no memories of any particular episode from either the animated series or the live-action series. All I know is that I used to watch both. But there is no way I could ever forget director Sam Rami's 2002 film adaptation, which starred Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker aka Spider-Man. How could I? I own a DVD copy of the movie.

"SPIDER-MAN" is basically Rami and screenwriter David Koepp's take on the web slinger's origins. The movie begins with teenager Peter Parker living with his Uncle Ben and Aunt May in Forest Hills, a suburb in Queens, New York. Peter is in love with next door neighbor Mary Jane Watson and is best friends with Harry Osborn, the son of millionaire/scientist and Oscorp CEO, Dr. Norman Osborn; who seems to regard Peter more as a son than Harry.  Peter attends a field trip with Mary Jane, Harry and other fellow students to a genetics lab. when he is bitten by a genetically engineered spider. He wakes up the following morning with perfect vision, fast reflexes, superhuman strength and the ability to emit web strings. His school fight with Mary Jane's bullying boyfriend, Flash Thompson, attracts Uncle Ben's attention, who has become concerned with Peter's recently distant behavior.

Meanwhile, Norman Osborn's company is in danger of losing its bid for a contract with the U.S. Army for weapons. Osborn tests his company's new performance-enhancing drug and becomes stronger. He also acquires a maniacal alter ego and murders his assistant. And Peter decides to use his new abilities to raise money. He enters a wrestling match to win $300 dollars. But the promoter scams him out of his full reward and Peter retaliates by refusing to help stop a thief from stealing the box office returns. The same thief ends up killing Uncle Ben during a carjacking. When Peter realizes that the thief and his uncle's killer are one and the same, he becomes guilt-ridden and decides to use his powers to become a masked vigilante following graduation from high school. In time, Peter aka Spider-Man and Osborn aka the Green Goblin battle it out for the safety of New York.

As much as I enjoyed "SPIDER-MAN", I must admit that it had its flaws. All of those flaws centered around Koepp's screenplay. One, I thought the story was a bit episodic, especially the first half that revealed both Spider-Man and the Green Goblin's origins. In fact, the movie could be easily divided into two halves - from the beginning to Peter's graduation from high school, and his activities and battles with the Green Goblin. Another major problem that stemmed from Koepp's screenplay was the dialogue. "SPIDER-MAN" turned out to be one of the two top movies that were released during the summer of 2002. The other was "STAR WARS: EPISODE II - ATTACK OF THE CLONES". While fans and critics criticized some of the dialogue in the latter film, they easily overlooked the cheesy dialogue that tainted "SPIDER-MAN", especially the smart-ass comments that poured from Spider-Man's mouth. And I found the Green Goblin's early attempt to convince Spider-Man to become an ally a bit contrived.

Fortunately, "SPIDER-MAN" possessed virtues that outnumbered its flaws. One, the movie was fortunate to have Danny Elfman as its composer. I thought he did a top-notch job that contributed greatly to not only the movie's, but the entire trilogy's atmosphere. Neil Spisak and his team did a superb job with the movie's production designs that gave it a colorful, comic-book style without going over-the-top.  I was especially impressed by Spisak's designs for the genetic lab sequence and the Oscorp-sponsored fair sequence that featured the murders of the Oscorp directors. Spisak's production work was ably assisted by Don Burgess' photography. In fact, I would say that Burgess' work more than Spisak's gave the movie its colorful comic-book style.

Although I found Koepp's screenplay a bit episodic, I must admit that it featured some very exciting scenes that I will never forget. My favorites include Peter's wrestling match with Bonesaw McGraw, the murder of the Oscorp directors, and Spider-Man's rescue of Mary Jane from a bunch of thugs. But the two scenes that truly stood out for me and struck me as well directed by Rami were the Thanksgiving dinner at Peter and Harry's Manhattan apartment; and the final showdown between Spider-Man and the Green Goblin. The Thanksgiving dinner not only led to Osborn's discovery of Peter's identity as Spider-Man, it provided a deliciously subtle interaction between the millionaire and Aunt May, due to wonderful performances by Willem Dafoe and Rosemary Harris.  Spider-Man and the Green Goblin's final confrontation led to a nail-biting moment in which the latter forced Spider-Man to choose between saving Mary Jane and the underage passengers of a Roosevelt Island Tramway car.  The sequence also led to a brutal fight between the adversaries and one of the best lines ever to be uttered by a Marvel villain:

"This is why only fools are heroes - because you never know when some lunatic will come along with a sadistic choice."

I will also add that when I criticized Koepp's screenplay for being episodic, I really meant that it seemed to be somewhat divided between two complete stories. Once Peter assumed the role of Spider-Man, became a photographer for The Daily Bugle and engaged in his conflict with the Green Goblin, the movie picked up to become a force of nature.

Tobey Maguire nearly failed to become Peter Parker aka Spider-Man.  Although Rami wanted him for the role, Columbia Pictures executives were hesitant to cast someone who did not seem to fit the ranks of "adrenaline-pumping, tail-kicking titans".  Apparently, these guys never read any of the comic books.  Without his Spider-Man outfit, Peter Parker was supposed to be a quiet, nerdy science student with a slight built.  Not only did Maguire physically and emotionally fulfilled Peter's character with perfection, he also worked with a physical trainer to improve his physique for the Spider-Man scenes.  His performances as Spider-Man really took me by surprise.  I did not realize that he would be so effective as both an action hero and quiet nerd.  And I like being surprised.

Koepp's portrayal of the Mary Jane Watson character differed from the comic books in many ways.  One, Peter and Mary Jane never met until both were students at Empire State University in the comic books.  Two, the comic book Mary Jane was a little more extroverted than the cinematic Mary Jane portrayed by Kirsten Dunst.  And she seemed quite taken by Spider-Man, after he saved her during the Goblin's murder of the Oscorp directors.  Despite these changes, Dunst gave an excellent performance with the character she was given and she had a very strong screen chemistry with Maguire, which culminated in the famous screen kiss that is still considered iconic.  Also, Dunst's Mary Jane proved that friendship was a more valuable component than mere muscles, when she revealed at the end that Peter meant more to her than Spider-Man.  Dunst also had a strong screen chemistry with actor James Franco, who gave an excellent performance as the insecure Harry Osborn, who longed for his father's attention and especially respect.  Come to think of it, Franco also had strong chemistry with both Maguire and Willem Dafoe.  Cliff Robertson was wonderful as Peter's Uncle Ben.  He and Maguire were excellent in the Peter/Uncle Ben scenes that would end up reverberating in the next two movies.  And Rosemary Harris was a delight as the warm-hearted Aunt May, especially in the Thanksgiving dinner scene and the hospital scene that featured her own heartwarming conversation with Peter.  Despite being forced to utter some very cheesy dialogue, Willem Dafoe overcame this defect and gave a truly scary and fascinating performance as Norman Osborn aka the Green Goblin.  Some of his best moments featured those scenes in which Osborn had conversations with his alter ego - the Goblin.  No wonder his Green Goblin is still considered to be the best on-screen Spider-Man villain.

Stan Lee was ecstatic over J.K. Simmons' portrayal of The Daily Bugle editor-in-chief, J. Jonah Jameson.  And I can see why.  In some ways, it is a rather one-dimensional performance.  Then again, I have always remembered Jameson as a one-dimensional character.  But Simmons breathed life and humor into the role and ended up giving one of the best performances in the movie. It is too bad that the Betty Brant character was regulated as a supporting one.  In the comic books, she was Peter's high school girlfriend and his first love.  In "SPIDER-MAN", she is Jameson's friendly secretary, who was always coming to Peter's aid.  Yet, Elizabeth Banks effused a great deal of warmth into the character that made her very likeable.  I can also say the same about Bill Nunn's performance as editor Joseph "Robbie" Robertson.  Bruce Campbell and Octavia Spencer provided some humorous moments as a wrestling announcer and a clerk who signs Peter up for a match.

Unlike many other fans of the "SPIDER-MAN" movie franchise, I never considered the 2002 movie to be the second best of those directed by Sam Rami.  David Koepp's screenplay seemed a bit episodic to me.  And it was filled with too many cheesy dialogue.  But the screenplay did provide a strong and action-packed second half for the story.  And I am one who cannot deny that Rami's direction, along with the production crew and an excellent cast led by Tobey Maguire overcame the screenplay's flaws and provided a first-rate comic book movie that I will never forget.

"SPIDER-MAN" (2002) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "SPIDER-MAN", the 2002 adaptation of Marvel Comics' superhero. Directed by Sam Rami, the movie starred Tobey Maguire as the web slinger:

"SPIDER-MAN" (2002) Photo Gallery

"SPIDER-MAN 3" (2007) Review

"SPIDER-MAN 3" (2007) Review”

Over the years I have learned not to anticipate or make assumptions about new movies. About two weeks before the debut of the 2007 SPIDER-MAN movie, "SPIDER-MAN 3", I had read mixed reviews of it. Although there were a few positive opinions, most of them seemed to be negative. After reading this, my anticipation of the movie had receded a bit. But I still maintained a "wait-and-see" attitude. When I finally saw "SPIDER-MAN 3", I was happy to discover that that my fears had become meaningless. Although not as well-crafted as "SPIDER-MAN 2", the third film in Sam Rami's SPIDER-MANtrilogy still managed to thrill me. 

Before I can wax lyrical over the movie, I must address the movie’s flaws. And it had a few. One, I felt a sense of disappointment over some of the movie’s action sequences that featured Spider-Man’s web swinging around New York. They seemed to lack the crisp and detailed style shown in the two previous films and almost struck me as confusing and overblown. Two, I had a problem or two with the Gwen Stacy character. I realize that there are differences between the movie versions and the comic book versions of the Spider-Man universe. In the comic books, the blond-haired Gwen happened to be Peter Parker’s first true love. Her death at the hands of the Green Goblin (aka Norman Osborn) eventually paved the way for Peter’s romance with and marriage to Mary Jane Watson. It is quite obvious in "SPIDER-MAN 3" that although classmates at Columbia University, Peter and Gwen were not in love. Just friends. I had no problems with this. Nor did I have any problems with a symbiote-possessed Peter using her to make Mary Jane jealous. But I did have problems with the fact that the story never followed up on the mess that Peter had created between Gwen and Mary Jane. The story never allowed us to learn whether Peter had apologized to Gwen for using her . . . or if she had forgiven him. And what was she doing at Harry’s funeral? I do not recall them being acquainted in the movieverse. In the comics, Gwen and Harry were old high school chums that dated briefly in college.

My last problem with "SPIDER-MAN 3" involved the triangle between Peter, Mary Jane and Harry Osborn (aka Green Goblin 2). Near the beginning of the story, Harry had decided to take the opportunity to get his revenge upon Peter for his father’s death in "SPIDER-MAN". The opportunity resulted in a brutal fight and Harry seriously injured in the hospital. Harry woke up as a partial amnesiac – forgetting the reason behind his animosity toward Peter. And the two managed to resume their friendship, until an evening spent with Mary Jane (who was trying to forget her present unhappiness with Peter) resurrected Harry’s memories. In the end, Harry managed to coerce Mary Jane into breaking up with Peter permanently. Unfortunately, the writers never revealed what argument that Harry had used to coerce Mary Jane. Instead, they left the audience in the dark.

But what did I like about "SPIDER-MAN 3"? For one . . . the story. It was easy for me to see that the story’s main theme seemed to be about vengeance and how – as Aunt May had put it to Peter – it can spread poison within a person until it completely consumes that person. Of all the major characters aside from Aunt May, only two were not touched or consumed by a desire for revenge – Gwen Stacy and Flint Marko. Marko’s actions stemmed from his desperate desire to acquire money to aid his ailing daughter. And poor Gwen became a victim of Peter’s desire for revenge against Mary Jane. But for the rest of the characters, revenge seemed to be the order of the day:

-Peter Parker aka Spider-Man: the Webslinger becomes consumed with revenge when he learns that his Uncle Ben’s true killer – namely Flint Marko – had escaped from prison. He later seeks revenge against Mary Jane for breaking up with him, with Harry for the latter’s earlier vengeful attack against him and for initiating the break-up with Mary Jane; and against Eddie Brock for the libelous photo of Spider-Man and winning the position of staff photographer at the DAILY BUGLE. He certainly was a busy boy.

-Harry Osborn aka New Goblin: Peter’s best friend has desired revenge against Peter (as Spider-Man) for killing his father in the first movie. He also has revenge against Mary Jane because she used him to forget her troubles with Peter.

-Mary Jane Watson: a part of me is not sure whether to include her on this list. But I could not help but wonder if her bitchiness toward Peter was a result of her own professional failure on Broadway, combined with her growing distaste toward Peter’s pride over his popularity as Spider-Man. And when Peter shares a publicized kiss with Gwen Stacy that is reminiscent of that famous kiss from the first movie, Mary Jane’s jealousy eventually overwhelms her . . . and she turns to Harry for comfort. I would not be surprised if her action came from a small desire to get back at Peter.

-Eddie Brock Jr. aka Venom: Even before the alien symbiote had taken over him, Eddie seemed like an unpleasant piece of goods. And when Peter rather maliciously exposed his chicanery over a faked Spider-Man photograph, it did not take Eddie long to rush to the nearest church and ask God . . . to kill Peter Parker. Like I had said, he was an unpleasant person. Eventually, Eddie’s desire for revenge would soon present itself.

-Flint Marko aka Sandman: Although I had earlier stated that Marko had no desire for revenge in the movie. I now realize that I may have been mistaken. After two frustrating encounters with Spider-Man, Marko finally gave in to a desire for revenge when he allowed Venom to manipulate him into using Mary Jane to lure and kill Peter.

The one theme that had dominated the Spider-Man saga in both the comics and the movies seemed to be: "With great power comes great responsibility." I do not know if I fully agree with that motto. I really cannot see how Peter Parker mustbecome a costumed crime fighter, because he accidentally got bitten by a radioactive spider. On the other hand, I do believe that one should face the responsibilities and consequences for the deliberate choices you make in life. And this, along with facing demons that include a desire for vengeance, seemed to be the drive behind the movie’s plot.

Each major character ended up facing his or her own personal demons – Peter’s pride as Spider-Man becomes a forerunner of the exposure of his own darker nature that includes a cruel desire for revenge; Mary Jane’s insecurity about her self-worth; Harry’s desire to revenge the death of his father to fulfill his own lack of self-worth; Marko’s desperation to do anything for his ill daughter; and Eddie’s own shallowness and deceptive nature. What made "SPIDER-MAN 3"’s plot so interesting is that the characters’ flaws and decisions served as different points that converged in the emotional final sequence at the construction site in Manhattan. There, the characters make final choices in how to deal with their demons and only one emerged as the true loser - Eddie Brock.

As in the previous two movies, the third one boasted some fine performances by the cast. J.K. Simmons’ J. Jonah Jameson managed to be his usual funny self. I especially enjoyed his interaction with Elizabeth Banks – secretary Betty Brandt – in a duel of nerves in which Betty seemed determined to annoy Jonah every second with some crazy alarm. If someone knows what it was, please tell me. Although in a smaller role than the previous two movies, Rosemary Harris returned to give a warm performance as Peter’s aging Aunt May. In a marvelous scene in which Peter informs his aunt of Flint Marko’s "death" at Spider-Man’s hands, Harris’ May delivered the movie’s theme in a foreboding line about the true nature of vengeance. Last, but not least there was Bryce Dallas Howard, who portrayed Peter’s beautiful blond classmate, Gwen Stacy. Granted, her role was not as large as it was in the comics, Howard gave a fine performance as the warm and friendly Gwen. Some critic had complained that the movie turned Gwen from Peter’s true love to some kind of temptress. I found this criticism rather ridiculous for two reasons – a) Mary Jane had been established as Peter’s true love since the first movie; and b) Gwen was not portrayed as some temptress, but a nice girl who became a victim of Peter’s vengeance against Mary Jane. 

Thomas Haden Church’s portrayal of Marko Flint aka Sandman seemed like a far cry from his past performances that I have seen in which he portrayed more extroverted characters. His Marko/Sandman must be one of the most introverted villains I have ever seen on the movie screens. In fact, his character reminded me of some melancholy circus clown with a black cloud of tragedy hovering about him. Considering the circumstances of Marko’s life – a failed criminal career, a failed marriage, ill child and imprisoned for a crime that was merely an accident – it was not hard for me to imagine this. In the end, I was very impressed by Church’s subtle performance. And I was also impressed by Topher Grace as Eddie Brock, Jr. aka Venom, as well. Originally, he was not suppose to be part of the movie’s cast of characters. But former CEO Ari Arvad convinced director Sam Rami to include the character. And I am glad. Brock turned out to be a very interesting character. When first introduced, he seemed like an affable and gregarious young man, who also worked as freelance photographer for ”THE DAILY BUGLE”. With great skill and subtlety, Grace allowed the audience to gradually see the character’s dark emptiness, underneath the charm. Two scenes seemed to reflect this – the one that featured Gwen Stacy dangling from a Manhattan high-rise and Brock’s visit to a church after losing his job. In the first scene, I found it interesting that although Brock seemed mildly concerned over Gwen’s near death situation, he seemed more interested in taking photos of her and Spider-Man’s rescue . . . than doing everything in his power to ensure that she would be rescued. After losing his staff photographer job at THE BUGLE, Brock ended up at a church, where I thought he would confess to a priest or express remorse over his past behavior. Instead, he prayed to God . . . for the death of the man who caused his unemployment, Peter Parker. This is the second time I have seen Grace skillfully portray a character with one trait hidden underneath another one. 

When Spidey fans last saw Harry Osborn in "SPIDER-MAN 2", he had learned two disquieting facts – the man he held responsible for his father’s death (namely Spider-Man), turned out to be his best friend, Peter Parker; and his father, Norman Osborn, had been the infamous Green Goblin who terrorized Manhattan in the first movie. Three years later, Harry still wants revenge for Norman’s death and he finally decided to take action as the New Goblin A failed attack upon Peter resulted in a serious injury for Harry and a temporary amnesia. The audience got to see what Harry would be without his insecurity and the ghost of his father haunting him. And he seemed like a pretty nice . . . and well-balanced young man. I tried to find something wrong with James Franco’s performance, but . . . I could not find a thing. Honestly. Franco managed to perfectly capture Harry’s emotional journey from the vengeful son to the sweet-tempered amnesiac to the cruel manipulator who broke up Peter and MJ’s relationship, to the loyal and brave man who sacrificed himself to save his friends. Franco covered it all.

I have always liked Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson in the first two movies. But I found her a lot more interesting in"SPIDER-MAN 3". Beneath the sweet and cheerful persona, Dunst revealed a Mary Jane still racked by an inferiority complex stemmed from her bad relationship with her verbally abusive father. This lack of self-esteem came from Mary Jane losing her job as leading lady of a Broadway musical. Even worse, Peter’s own success as Spider-Man not only fueled Mary Jane’s insecurity, but fueled her envy as well. Matters did not help when Peter/Spidey had agreed to exchange a public kiss with Gwen Stacy, re-creating Mary Jane’s first kiss with him in the first movie. What I liked about Dunst’s performance is that she allowed all of these negative aspects of Mary Jane’s personality to manifest without resorting to over-the-top theatrics. I have come to the conclusion that very few screen actors and actresses seem capable of avoiding scene chewing. Especially those of Dunst’s generation. Fortunately, she did just that – avoid any hammy acting, while projecting Mary Jane’s darker impulses. As for her singing voice, I got the impression that it had been dubbed during MJ’s Broadway performance. But I could detect Dunst’s voice, when Mary Jane sang at a jazz club during the movie’s final scene. She had a nice, but slightly nasal voice.

As for the man himself – Tobey Maguire – I must say that Sam Rami had not been joking when he called Maguire one of the best actors of his generation. I felt more than impressed by his performance in "SPIDER-MAN 3". Although Maguire was able to briefly tap into Peter Parker aka Spider-Man’s dark psyche in the first movie (when he allowed a thief to get away with money stolen from a wrestling match), he was truly allowed to explore Peter’s darker nature in this film. There are two particular scenes that verified Maguire’s extraordinary skills as an actor:

*Peter’s misguided belief in his "cool" image, while walking the streets of Manhattan. Even evil (thanks to the symbiote suit), Peter could not help being a nerd. Watching Peter wallow in the illusion of his "coolness", while oblivious of passing females’ contempt made this sequence one of the funniest in the movie. It also showcased Maguire’s comedic skills.

*Peter’s second confrontation with Harry, inside the Osborn manor, revealed the depths of how monstrous he could be. He seemed truly dark in this scene. Maguire even managed to allow the contempt and hatred reflected in his eyes, when Peter ridiculed Harry for attempting to follow in Norman Osborn’s footsteps. In all, it was a very excellent performance on Maguire’s part.

From what I have read, "SPIDER-MAN 3" has received mixed reviews. Hmmm. Well, I certainly cannot influence the opinions of others. I can only express my own views. Personally, I enjoyed the movie very much. It possessed an emotional depth that went even further than first two movies. When I first heard that Spider-Man would be facing three villains – the New Goblin (Harry), the Sandman (Flint Marko) and Venom (Eddie Brock, Jr.) – I had my doubts about the movie’s success. It seemed like one or two villains too many. Oddly enough, after seeing the movie, it now seemed to work within its plot for me – despite the number of villains. Now that I think about it, the one true villain of the story – aside from the major characters’ inner darkness – seemed to be Venom. Unlike Peter or Harry, Eddie Brock never could break away from his darker impulses . . . even when Peter managed to force him away from the symbiote. And unlike Marko, Eddie never felt any remorse for his actions . . . right to the end.

To my amazement, I realized that my view of Rami's "SPIDER-MAN" trilogy seemed to match my view of the first three X-MEN movies. For me, the first movie of both trilogies struck me as very entertaining, but slightly mediocre ("SPIDER-MAN" is “almost” mediocre). The second movie for each trilogy was superb. Period. And the third movies for the two trilogies were flawed, but excellent, thanks to filmmaker Sam Rami.

"THE BEGUILED" (2017) Review

"THE BEGUILED" (2017) Review

I have never been a diehard fan of Southern Gothic fiction. Not really. But there have been some fictional works in that genre that have appealed to me. In fact, if you ask me, I could come up with a pretty good list of Southern Gothic movie and television productions that I have always enjoyed. 

Thomas Cullinan's 1966 novel, "The Beguiled" aka "A Painted Devil" first came to my attention when I saw the 1971 movie adaptation of the novel years ago. I became an instant fan of the film and read Cullinan's novel. Then I became a fan of the novel. So when I heard that director Sofia Coppola planned to direct her own film adaptation, I looked forward to it. One, I liked the story. Two, I am a sucker for a good Civil War film, being an amateur historian and movie nut. And I had also learned Coppola had won the Palme d'Or Best Director award (the second woman to do so) at the 2017 Cannes Film Festival for this film.

Don Siegel's 1971 adaptation had made a few changes to Cullinan's novel. One, he and the movie's screenwriters made the story's leading man an American of Irish descent, instead of the Irish immigrant portrayed in the novel. The story was set in 1863 Mississippi, during the Vicksburg Campaign. And two of the novels' characters - the 17 year-old biracial Edwina Morrow and the nearly middle-aged Miss Harriet Farnsworth - were merged into a young white schoolteacher named Edwina Dabney. Sofia Coppola's movie maintained the novel's portrayal of leading man as an Irish immigrant and Cullinan's setting - 1864 Virginia, during the Civil War's Overland Campaign. However, Coppola's movie followed Siegel's example by merging the Edwina Morrow and Harriet Farnsworth characters into a schoolteacher.

"THE BEGUILED" began in the woods, near the Farnsworth Seminary, an all girls' school in 1864 Virginia. When one of its students, a thirteen year-old girl named Amy is searching the woods for mushrooms to pick, she comes across a wounded Union Army soldier named Corporal John McBurney. He had been wounded in the leg before deserting the battlefield. Amy brings McBurney to the school where he falls unconscious. The school's headmistress, Miss Martha Farnsworth, decides to heal the corporal's wounded leg before turning him over to the Confederate Army as a prisoner. But Miss Farnsworth, Amy and the other females inside the school become "charmed" by the Irish-born soldier, as he slowly heals from his wounds. Amy, another student named Alicia and the school's remaining teacher, Edwina Morrow, become especially captivated by McBurney's charm. However, McBurney's presence in the school generate a good deal of jealousy between the young students and the two women before an unexpected incident spirals the entire situation out of control.

Like the 1966 novel and its 1971 adaptation, "THE BEGUILED" took me by surprise in many ways. One of the film's most noteworthy aspects was Philippe Le Sourd's cinematography. I have never seen any of his previous film work. But I must admit that his photography did an excellent job in creating this film's Old South atmosphere:



Le Sourd's cinematography definitely helped setting up the film's atmosphere, especially due to the lack of any solid score. I also have to give points to Stacey Battat for creating costumes designs indicative to the Civil War period - especially for women and girls. Mind you, I thought some of the costumes may have been slightly anachronistic.

I also cannot deny that "THE BEGUILED" featured some strong performances from the cast. Nicole Kidman, Colin Farrell and Kirsten Dunst were top-notched, as usual. Kidman did a fine job portraying the no-nonsense and pragmatic headmistress, Martha Farnsworth, who seemed to have little problems with controlling those around her . . . including her only schoolteacher. Despite Martha Farnsworth being her second role as a Southerner (I think), I was surprised that Kidman's Southern accent wavered a bit. Although Farrell is at least twenty years older than the literary John McBurney, he was free to portray the character as was described in Cullinan's novel - an Irish immigrant recently recruited into the Union Army upon his arrival in the United States. However, his McBurney's charm seemed to have more of an edge of desperation, due to his circumstances. And Kirsten Dunst gave a very competent performance as the emotionally repressed Edwina Morrow, a young schoolteacher who finds herself drawn to the handsome McBurney, despite her efforts to ignore him. Dunst also did a competent job in not only conveying Edwina's growing attraction to McBurney, but also her wariness of being under Miss Farnsworth's control.

The movie could also boast some surprisingly excellent performances from the younger cast members, who portrayed the school's students. Elle Fanning gave a decent performance as the adolescent Alicia, whose attraction to McBurney partly stems from her growing awareness of her sexuality. However, there were moments when it seemed she was losing some control of the character. Oona Laurence, Angourie Rice, and Emma Howard also gave very competent performances. But I was especially impressed by Addison Riecke's portrayal of young Marie, an impish student who borrowed Edwina's earrings for the dinner party with McBurney and managed to manipulatively avoid returning them to the schoolteacher. Excellent performance by the young actress.

Although "THE BEGUILED" possessed some admirable traits, overall I was not that impressed by the film. Frankly, I am at a loss over how Coppola managed to win such a prestigious award at the Cannes Film Festival. Perhaps the voters had no idea that the narrative for this film is basically a Southern Gothic tale? Who knows? Coppola had erased so much from Cullinan's story.

One aspect of "THE BEGUILED" that came to my attention was the lack of background for most of the characters at the Farnsworth Seminary. Now, unless my memory is failing me, the movie only revealed the fact that Edwina Morrow had a father living in Richmond. I believe the movie also touched upon the wartime fate of Amelia's brothers. I believe. To be honest, I am not that certain. Coppola deleted Martha Farnsworth's family history - especially her incestuous relationship with her brother. After all, one of the reasons Miss Farnsworth eventually opened up to McBurney was his resemblance to this "much loved" brother. Although the film revealed the existence of Edwina's father, the screenplay never touched upon his role as a war profiteer or his lack of concern toward his daughter. The movie revealed nothing about Alicia's family background - especially her prostitute mother who had abandoned her at the seminary. The movie revealed nothing about the remaining students' backgrounds. McBurney's discoveries and knowledge of their personal histories played a role in the events that occurred in the movie's third act. Without the revelations of the female characters' backgrounds, Coppola resorted to whitewashing the reasons behind their actions in the film's third act.

Coppola claimed that she wanted "THE BEGUILED" to give a "voice" to the story's female characters. Why did she make that claim? Each chapter in Cullinan's 1966 novel was written from the viewpoints of a major female character and NOT . . . from Corporal McBurney's point of view. Although the 1971 film featured scenes from McBurney's point of view, it also did the same for the female characters. Also, McBurney was the only major character who lacked an inner monologue. Since the novel and the 1971 film featured the females' points of view, what on earth was Coppola's goal? To portray her female characters as ideal as possible? I noticed that neither anger or jealousy played a role in the violence that marked the film's third act. 

Alicia slept with McBurney because she was an adolescent "exploring her growing sexuality". Not once did Coppola's screenplay hint how her past experiences with her prostitute mother may have influenced her behavior with the opposite sex. By removing Martha Farnsworth's incestuous history with her late brother - the one whom McBurney resembled, Coppola removed any possibility of Miss Farnsworth being driven by anger and jealousy over his tryst with Alicia to amputate his leg. By having McBurney behave like a borderline stalker in one scene following his amputation, Coppola justified the females' decision to kill him with poisonous mushrooms. It seemed as if Coppola's idea of feminist sensibilities is to portray her female characters with as little flaws as possible. And this led to her portraying the female characters' decisions in the film's last hour to be marred by a lack of moral ambiguity of any kind. This decision on Coppola's part strikes me as cowardly.

If Coppola's decision to portray her females characters with as little ambiguity as possible was bad enough, she also eliminated the school's remaining slave, an African-American woman named Matilda ("Mattie"). Coppola gave a reason for this decision in the following statement:

"I didn’t want to brush over such an important topic in a light way. Young girls watch my films and this was not the depiction of an African-American character I would want to show them."

What depiction was she referring to? Cullinan's portrayal of Mattie in the 1966 novel? The only character who saw through McBurney's charming bullshit and wanted nothing to do with him? Or Hallie (who was renamed) from the 1971 film, who also saw through his charm, despite their occasional bouts of flirting. I had no problems with either Cullinan or Siegel's depictions of the character. Naturally, some movie reviewers supported Coppola's decision, including one reviewer from the ALLIANCE OF WOMEN FILM JOURNALIST, who stated:

"The film has been criticized for its lack of comment on the Civil War or slavery. The war is a backdrop, the circumstance that isolated than part of the story. Unlike the 1966 novel and the 1971 movie, there are no African American characters in this film, explained by a single line says they left. Because it is set in the Civil War, it is a valid point but addressing the issue would have taken the focus off the women’s issues that are Coppola’s main point."

Apparently, Coppola and her supporters do not regard women of color as a part of "women's issues". Or perhaps they feel that non-white women are not . . . women. White feminism at its height. If Coppola felt uncomfortable at the idea in exploring a non-white character, why on earth did she adapt Cullinan's novel in the first place? 

The lack of Mattie/Hallie in Coppola's adaptation raised other problems. One, the slave woman's presence allowed both Cullinan and Siegel to portray the school's other occupants with a level of ambiguity that Coppola lacked the guts to face. I wonder if Mattie's presence would have robbed Coppola the opportunity to explore her fantasies regarding Southern white women. Mattie was one of two characters who knew why Martha Farnsworth was willing to amputate McBurney's leg in the novel. In Don Siegel's movie, she was the only one. This knowledge led to an interesting scene between the two women in both the novel and the 1971 film. In both the novel and the Siegel film, Mattie/Hallie was the person who actually prepared the poisoned mushrooms for McBurney . . . and she did it out of her own anger toward the Union soldier. Without the slave woman, who prepared the mushrooms in this film? Edwina Morrow, who had been serving as the establishment's cook, following the slaves' departure? At the time, she was busy enjoying lustful relations with McBurney. Miss Farnsworth? Did she know how to cook? The movie never established this.

"BEGUILED" did feature scenes of the students and the two teachers engaged in household and garden duties. First of all, none of them looked as if they knew what they were doing. Second of all, since they were such abysmal housekeepers, how did they managed to keep their clothing looking so pristine? Without the benefit of servants?



Judging from the costumes worn in the above image, Dunst and her younger co-stars do not look as if they are dressed for household duties. Instead, they seemed to be dressed for Sunday church services in the mid 19th century, an afternoon tea party or a picnic. At least other Civil War movie and television productions have their Southern female characters dressed more realistically . . . even the 1939 movie, "GONE WITH THE WIND". I find it difficult to believe that Miss Farnsworth and her fellow inhabitants were capable of keeping their daily clothes looking so pristine - with or without a servant. All of the look like figures in some Southern belle fantasy.

For me, there were other problems in Coppola's adaptation. I had a problem with her characterization of McBurney. Both the novel and the 1971 presented the character as something of a snake-tongued charmer. Farrell's interpretation seemed to present McBurney more as an obsequious man who resorts to slavish politeness, instead of charm, to win over the school's inhabitants. Farrell had the skill to convey McBurney's charm, but it seemed as if Coppola had somehow held him back. Worse, the movie barely touched upon the Civil War, despite the presence of a Union soldier. I also did not understand why Coppola maintained the character of Emily Stevenson, and yet transferred Emily's "pro-Confederate" personality to a character created for the film. Why did she do that? Why did she film this movie in Louisiana? Coppola retained the setting from the novel - Virginia 1864. Yet, she shot the film in the Deep South - a region that looked nothing like Virginia. Coppola could have changed the setting to the Deep South or shoot the film in the Upper South. She did neither. I also need to rephrase my comments regarding Philippe Le Sourd's cinematography. Although I admired his exterior shots in the film, I cannot say the same about his interior shots. Quite frankly, I could barely see a damn thing, even when a scene was set during the daytime.

I am still at a loss on how Sofia Coppola thought she could improve both Thomas Cullinan's novel and Don Siegel's 1971 adaptation. Granted, the cast - including Nicole Kidman, Colin Farrell and Kirsten Dunst - gave competent performances. But Coppola stripped away so much from this story. She stripped away a lot of the characters' ambiguity. She stripped away an important character who had the misfortune - at least in the director's eyes - to be an African-American. Which meant that she stripped away the topic of slavery and to a certain extent, even the war itself. In the end, "THE BEGUILED" seemed like a Southern Gothic tale with barely any life. It struck me as a shell of Cullinan's novel and Siegel's own adaptation. After watching this film, I found myself asking why Coppola felt she could adapt the 1966 novel in the first place, considering that she seemed incapable of exploring it with any semblance of real honesty.

"THE BEGUILED" (2017) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "THE BEGUILED", the 2017 adaptation of Thomas P. Cullinan's 1966 novel. Directed by Sofia Coppola, the movie starred Nicole Kidman, Colin Farrell and Kirsten Dunst: 


"THE BEGUILED" (2017) Photo Gallery