"GANGS OF NEW YORK" (2002) Review
With the exception of a few, many of Martin Scorsese's films have been set in the City of New York - whether in the past or present. One of those films is his 2002 Oscar nominated film, "THE GANGS OF NEW YORK".
Loosely based upon Herbert Ashbury's 1927 non-fiction book, "GANGS OF NEW YORK" had the distinction of being a crime drama about a gang war . . . set during the first half of the U.S. Civil War. Before I continue, I should add that the film was not only based upon Ashbury's book, but also on the life and death of a street gang leader named William Poole.
"GANGS OF NEW YORK" began in 1846, when two street gangs - the Protestant"Nativists" led by William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting; and the "Dead Rabbits", an Irish immigrant gang led by "Priest" Vallon; meet somewhere in the Five Points neighborhood of Manhattan for a fight. Near the end of a vicious street brawl, Cutting kills Vallon. A close friend of Vallon hides his young son inside an orphanage on Blackwell's Island. Sixteen years pass and Vallon's son, who has renamed himself Amsterdam, returns to the Five Points neighborhood to seek revenge against "Bill the Butcher", who now rules the neighborhood. Against the back drop of the early years of the Civil War, Amsterdam maneuvers himself into Cutting's confidence, as he waits for the right moment to strike and get his revenge against the man who killed his father.
There are aspects of "GANGS OF NEW YORK" that I either liked or found impressive. Considering that Scorsese shot the film at the Cinecittà Studios and the Silvercup Studios in Queens, New York; I must admit that I found Dante Ferretti's production designs serving for Manhattan rather impressive. Impressive, but not exactly accurate or near accurate. The movie looked as if it had been shot on a sound stage. But I must say that I admired how the designs conveyed Scorsese's own vision of Manhattan 1862-63. I also noticed that the color tones utilized by cinematographer Michael Ballhaus reminded me of the three-strip Technicolor process from the early-to-mid 1930s. Rather odd for a period movie set during the U.S. Civil War. However, thanks to Ferretti's designs and Michael Ballhaus' very colorful photography, the movie's vision of 1860s Manhattan had a theatrical style to it - especially in the Five Points scenes. I did not love it, but I found it interesting.
I could probably say the same about Sandy Powell's costume designs. They struck me as an extreme version of 1860s fashion, especially in regard to color and fabrics, as shown in the image below:
And there was something about the movie's costume designs for men that I found slightly confusing. Mind you, I am not much of an expert on 19th century fashion for men. But for some reason, I found myself wondering if the costumes designed for the male cast were for a movie set in the 1840s, instead of the 1860s, as shown below:
But if I must be honest with myself, I did not like "GANGS OF NEW YORK". Not one bit. The movie proved to be a major disappointment. One of the main problems I had with this film was that Scorsese; along with screenwriters Jay Cocks, Steven Zaillian and Kenneth Lonergan; took what should have been a character-driven period crime drama and transformed it into something nearly unwieldy. When you think about it, "GANGS OF NEW YORK" was basically a fictionalized account of a feud between American-born William Poole and an Irish immigrant named John Morrissey, the former leader of the real "Dead Rabbits" gang. And their feud had played out in the early-to-mid 1850s. Instead, Scorsese and the screenwriters shifted the movie's setting to the early years of the Civil War and ended the narrative with the New York City Draft Riots of 1863 in some attempt to transform what could have been a more intimate period drama into this gargantuan historical epic. I found this perplexing, considering that the Civil War had little to do with the film's main narrative. It also did not help that the film's narrative struck me as a bit choppy, thanks to Scorsese being forced to delete a good deal of the film at the behest of the producers.
I did not have a problem with the conflict/relationship between Bill Cutting and Amsterdam Vallon. I thought Scorsese made an interesting choice by having Amsterdam ingratiate himself into Cutting's inner circle . . . and keeping his true identity a secret. This paid off when Amsterdam saved Cutting from an assassinating attempt, leading the latter to assume the position of the younger man's mentor. At first, I could not understand why Scorsese had included a romantic interest for Amsterdam in the form of a grifter/pickpocket named Jenny Everdeane. In the end, she proved to be a catalyst that led to Amsterdam and Cutting's eventual conflict near the end of the film. One of the few people who knew Amsterdam's true identity was an old childhood acquaintance named Johnny Sirocco, who became infatuated over Jenny. When he became aware of Amsterdam's romance with Jenny, Johnny ratted out his friend's identity to Cutting.
But what followed struck me as . . . confusing. On the 17th anniversary of his father's death, Amsterdam tried to kill Cutting and failed. Instead of killing the younger man in retaliation, Cutting merely wounded Amsterdam, branded the latter's cheek and declared him an outcast in the Five Points neighborhood. An outcast? That was it? I found it hard to believe that a violent and vindictive man like Bill "the Butcher" Cutting would refrain from killing someone who tried to kill him. Perhaps this scenario could have worked if Cutter had tried to kill Amsterdam and fail, allowing the latter to make his escape. Or not. But I found Scorsese's scenario with Amsterdam being banished from Cutting's circle and the Five Points neighborhood to be something of a joke.
As for the movie's performances . . . for me they seemed to range from decent to below average. For a movie that featured some of my favorite actors and actresses, I was surprised that not one performance really impressed me. Not even Daniel Day-Lewis' Oscar nominated performance as William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting. Mind you, Day-Lewis had one or two scenes that impressed - especially one that involved a conversation between Bill the Butcher and Amsterdam, inside a brothel. Otherwise, I felt that the actor was chewing the scenery just a bit too much for my tastes. Leonardo Di Caprio, on the other hand, was crucified by critics and moviegoers for his portrayal of the revenge seeking Amsterdam Vallon. Aside from his questionable Irish accent, I had no real problems with Di Caprio's performance. I simply did not find his character very interesting. Just another kid seeking revenge for the death of his father. What made this desire for revenge ridiculous to me is that Bill the Butcher had killed "Priest" Vallon in a fair fight. Not many critics were that impressed by Cameron Diaz's performance. Aside from her questionable Irish accent, I had no real problems with the actress. I had a bigger problem with her character, Jenny Everdeane. To put it quite frankly, aside from her role serving as a catalyst to Cutting's discovery of Amsterdam's true identity, I found Jenny's role in this movie rather irrelevant.
As for the other members of the cast . . . I found their performances solid, but not particularly noteworthy. I thought Henry Thomas gave a decent performance as the lovelorn and vindictive Johnny Sirocco. The movie featured Jim Broadbent, Roger Ashton-Griffiths, Cara Seymour and Michael Byrne portraying true-life characters like William "Boss" Tweed, P.T. Barnum, Hell Cat Maggie and Horace Greeley. They gave competent performances, but I did not find them particularly memorable. The movie also featured solid performances from the likes of Liam Neeson, John C. Reilly, Brendan Gleeson, Gary Lewis, Lawrence Gilliard Jr., Stephen Graham, Eddie Marsan, David Hemmings, Barbara Bouchet and Alec McCowen. But honestly, I could not think of a performance that I found memorable.
My real problem with "GANGS OF NEW YORK" was Scorsese's handling of the movie's historical background. Quite frankly, I thought it was appalling. I am not referring to the film's visual re-creation of early 1860s Manhattan. I am referring to how Scorsese utilized the movie's mid-19th century historical background for the film. Earlier, I had pointed out that the Civil War setting for "GANGS OF NEW YORK" barely had any impact upon the movie's narrative. I think it may have been a bit in error. Scorsese and the screenwriters did utilize the Civil War setting, but in a very poor manner.
"GANGS OF NEW YORK" should never have been set during the U.S. Civil War. It was a big mistake on Scorsese's part. Day-Lewis’ character is based upon someone who was killed in 1855, six years before the war's outbreak. Scorsese should have considered setting the movie during the late antebellum period, for his handling of the Civil War politics in the movie struck me as very questionable. From Scorsese's point of view in this film, the Union is basically a militaristic entity bent upon not only oppressing the Confederacy, but also its citizens in the North - including immigrants and African-Americans. This view was overtly manifested in two scenes - the U.S. Naval bombing of the Five Points neighborhood during the Draft Riots . . . something that never happened; and a poster featuring the images of both Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass that appeared in the movie:
What made this poster even more ridiculous is that the image of Frederick Douglass was anachronistic. Douglass was roughly around 44 to 45 years old during the movie's time period. He looked at least 15 to 20 years older in the poster.
In "GANGS OF NEW YORK", Americans of Anglo descent like Bill the Butcher were the real bigots of 1860s Manhattan. Not only did they hate immigrants, especially Irish-born immigrants, but also black Americans. I am not claiming that all 19th century Anglo-Americans tolerated blacks and immigrants. Trust me, they did not. But did Scorsese actually expected moviegoers to believe that most of the Irish immigrants were more tolerant of African-Americans than the Anglos? Apparently, he did. He actually portrayed one character, an African-American named Jimmy Spoils, as one of Amsterdam's close friends and a member of the latter's newly reformed "Dead Rabbits" gang. Honestly? It was bad enough that Scorsese's portrayal of Jimmy Spoils was so damn limited. I cannot recall a well-rounded black character in any of his movies. Not one.
Scorsese and his screenwriters made the situation worse by portraying the Irish immigrants as generally more tolerant toward blacks than the Anglos. In fact, the only Irish-born or characters of Irish descent hostile toward African-Americans in the film were those manipulated by Anglos or traitors to their own kind. According to the movie, the violent inflicted upon blacks by Irish immigrants was the instigation of Federal military policy. By embracing this viewpoint, Scorsese seemed unwilling to face the the real hostility that had existed between Irish immigrants and African-Americans years before the draft riots in July 1863. Actually, both the Irish and the Anglo-Americans - "the Natives" - were racist toward the blacks. One group was not more tolerant than the other. The movie also featured Chinese immigrants as background characters. In other words, not one of them was given a speaking part. If Scorsese had really wanted the New York Draft Riots to be the centerpiece of this movie, he should have focused more on race relations and been more honest about it.
I really wish that I had enjoyed "GANGS OF NEW YORK". I really do. I have always been fascinated by U.S. history during the Antebellum and Civil War periods. But after watching this film, I came away with the feeling that Martin Scorsese either had no idea what kind of film that he wanted or that he tried to do too much. Was "GANGS OF NEW YORK" a period crime drama or a historical drama about the events that led to the New York Draft Riots? It seemed as if the director was more interested in his tale about Amsterdam Vallon and William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting. If so, he could have followed the William Poole-John Morrissey conflict more closely, set this film where it truly belonged - in the 1850s - and left the Civil War alone. I believe his handling of the Civil War proved to be a major stumbling block of what could have been an well done film.
This article was first written around late Season Four of the AMC series, "MAD MEN". MATTHEW WEINER, "MAD MEN" AND ISSUESEver since the characters Roger Sterling and Joan Harris were mugged by an African-American man in the Season Four episode of "MAD MEN", (4.09) "The Beautiful Girls", the topic of race in the series reared its head again. The ironic thing is that many of the series' fans and the media still refuse to criticize the series' creator, Matthew Weiner, for the series' minimal exploration of race. Instead, they believe that Weiner will gradually get into the issue by the time the series focuses upon the late 1960s. Matthew Weiner reminds me a lot of the creator of "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER", Joss Whedon. The had engaged in a good deal of in-depth exploration of feminine issues during that series' run. Yet, it barely touched upon race issues. The same seemed to be happening in Matthew Weiner's handling of "MAD MEN". He tried to deal with the race issue with the character of Shelia White back in Season Two. Sheila was the girlfriend of Sterling Cooper copywriter Paul Kinsey. But eight episodes following her first appearance, Sheila's character ended up being dropped in a very unsatisfying manner. Instead of showing the audience the circumstances that led to her and Paul's breakup, Weiner merely had Paul reveal the news to his fellow co-workers, upon his return from a trip to Mississippi. And Weiner portrayed Carla, the Drapers' maid, as the wise and dignified "Negro" - someone who turned out to be not very interesting. Poor Carla became one of those cliches that have permeated Hollywood for so many decades. In her case, she became the "dignified Negro".I really do not see why Weiner could have approached the issue of race from a perspective not shown before - an African-American character that also happened to be an advertising executive. Most people do not realize this, but African-Americans began being employed by advertising agencies as far back as the mid or late 1950s . . . and not as service employees. Weiner had plenty of opportunity to approach this topic in the past two to three seasons. There is no need for him to wait until the series is set in the late 1960s. One of the few critics of Weiner's handling of the race issue had expressed mild contempt. This critic pointed out the the FOX series, "24" had an African-American character as President of the United States . . . six years before Barack Obama became the first person of African descent to be elected to that office. If the producers of "24" (who were known for harboring conservative political beliefs) could do this, what had prevented Weiner from including a major African-American character as an employee of Sterling-Cooper after four seasons? Especially since there had been a small number of Black Americans who worked in advertising. I also thought Weiner would deal with gay issues with the character of Sal Romano over the series. In the end, Weiner backed away from that subject, as well. Some claim that Sal's story had simply ran its course. I disagree. Weiner had plenty of opportunity to continue Sal's story. He had barely touched upon the issue of Sal's marriage to Kitty, before he had Sal's character removed from the series in the Season 3 episode, (3.09) "Wee Small Hours". I found this decision to get rid of Sal very disappointing.I suspect that like Whedon, Weiner will eventually approach the topic of race . . . but at the last minute. Hopefully, there will be a television series or movie that will be brave enough to give equal time to the topic of gender, race and gay issues.Post-Script:Season Five of "MAD MEN" featured the introduction of Dawn Chambers, Don Draper's new African-American secretary. I wish I could say that with the introduction of Dawn, Weiner was finally able to explore an African-American character. Unfortunately, poor Dawn was treated as a recurring character whom viewers barely got the chance to know. Dawn received a promotion to office manager in Season Six. However, her character remained unexplored - especially outside of the office. Not even the introduction of another black secretary, Shirley, could improve Weiner's portrayal of race in the series.I discovered something even more disturbing. Remember the Coca Cola commercial that included the song, "I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing"? The very ad that ended the series? Guess who really created the jingle for the ad? It was an African-American music executive named Roquel Billy Davis. Ironically, Davis not only worked for McCann-Erikson, the advertisement company that had purchased Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce; he eventually rose to Senior Vice-President and Music Director for that agency. Don was credited for Davis' work. The series featured another one of Davis' work involving the Miller Brewing Company account in early Season Seven. Apparently, Weiner had no problem with appropriating accounts associated with a real life African-American ad executive for the series. But he seemed to have problems featuring African-American ad executives, even when they DID exist during the show's time period. I recently learned that Sal Romano's departure from "MAD MEN" was the result of actor Bryan Batt's decision to leave the series for personal reasons. However, the topic of homosexuality was never really explored following Batt's Season Three departure. It had a chance to do so through the character of junior account executive Bob Benson, portrayed by actor James Wolk. Unfortunately, Weiner used the Bob Benson character as a mystery and as a plot device regarding Pete Campbell and Joan Harris' character arcs; instead of someone used to further explore LGBT issues. What a waste.
Below are images from Season Two of the WGN series, "UNDERGROUND". Created by Misha Green and Joe Pokaski, the series stars Jurnee Smollett-Bell and Aldis Hodge:
"UNDERGROUND" SEASON TWO (2017) Photo Gallery
"POLDARK" SERIES TWO (1977) EPISODES ONE TO FIVEA very strange thing occurred some forty-four years ago. Twenty years following the publication of the fourth novel of his "POLDARK" series, "Warleggan: A Novel of Cornwall, 1792-1793", Winston Graham's fifth novel in the series was published - namely "The Black Moon: A Novel of Cornwall, 1794-1795" (1973). Producers Morris Barry and Anthony Coburn had already adapted Graham's first four novels in 1975. The pair waited another two years before they adapted the next three novels in the series, including "The Black Moon" Most of the cast managed to return for the second series of "POLDARK". At least those who characters were still alive by the end of Series One. Barry and Coburn were lucky to keep at least four actors from the 1975 series - Robin Ellis, Angharad Rees, Jill Townsend and Ralph Bates; along with several other cast members. Only two roles were replaced with different actors. Michael Cadman replaced Richard Morant as Dr. Dwight Enys, and Alan Tilvern ("WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT?") replaced Nicholas Selby as Nicholas Warleggan. The first five out of thirteen episodes for Series Two focused on the 1973 novel, "The Black Moon". The following two novels - "The Four Swans: A Novel of Cornwall, 1795-1797" (1976) and "The Angry Tide: A Novel of Cornwall, 1798-1799" (1977) were adapted within four episodes each. I found this surprising, considering that "The Black Moon" is not the longest of the three novels published in the 1970s. Why Coburn and Barry had decided to give this particular novel five episodes? I do not have the foggiest idea.Episodes One to Five of "POLDARK" Series Two aka "The Black Moon" picked up several months after Episode Fifteen of the 1975 adaptation of "Warleggan: A Novel of Cornwall, 1792-1793" (1953). The series protagonist, Ross Poldark, has returned home after serving a few months as a British Army officer during the War of the First Coalition. Ross' close friend, Dr. Dwight Enys, is serving as a surgeon for the Royal Navy and is secretly engaged to local heiress Caroline Penvenen. Demelza Carne Poldark's two brothers - Sam and Drake Carne arrive in the Truro neighborhood to make their living. And Ross' first love and former cousin-in-law, Elizabeth Chynoweth Poldark Warleggan, recently married to wealthy banker George Warleggan, gives birth to her second son, Valentine Warleggan. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to George, Valentine was conceived when Ross had raped Elizabeth in the previous series. Following Valentine's difficult birth, Elizabeth summons her younger cousin Morwenna Chynoweth to serve as governess for her older son, Geoffrey Charles Poldark. Upon Ross' return, he discovers to his dismay that his great-aunt Agatha Poldark is now living with Elizabeth and George at a third Poldark estate where she and her brother Benjamin Poldark use to live. Agatha had lost the estate when the Warleggan Bank had foreclosed on it. Ross' cousin-in-law Verity Poldark Blamey informed him that Elizabeth had asked George to allow Agatha to live with them. Despite Elizabeth's kind gesture, Agatha and George take an instant dislike to each other. Episodes One to Five cover the following subplots:*Ross Poldark' efforts to find and rescue Dwight Enys, who ended up captured by the French
*The developing romance between Drake Carne and Morwenna Chynoweth
*Sam Carne's efforts to create a Methodist church and congregation in the Truro neighborhood
*Elizabeth Warleggan's concerns over her newly born son's health
*George Warleggan and Aunt Agatha Poldark's feudI like the Dr. Dwight Enys character very much. Thanks to Winston Graham's pen and Richard Morant's performance in the 1975 series, Dwight managed to be complex and ambiguous without losing any sympathy from my perspective. And actor Michael Cadman, who took over the role in the 1977 series, did a solid job . . . at least from what I could garner from his performance in Episode Five. But I have to be honest. I simply could not summon enough interest in Ross Poldark's efforts to rescue Dwight from France. One, I found Ross' initial trip to France in Episode Three rather foolish, especially since he did not speak French. And sure enough, Ross was captured and nearly executed during that first trip. And when Ross returned to France with his brother-in-law, Drake Carne, and other men to literally rescue Dwight in the second half of Episode Four . . . I was simply bored with the entire sequence. There was no one to blame. The actors did their parts. Philip Dudley did an excellent job in directing the sequence. I realized that I was simply not that interested in watching another sequence in which Ross Poldark played action hero. Especially not after the events of the 1975 adaptation of "Warleggan".A more interesting story arc focused on the young star-crossed lovers, Morwenna Chynoweth and Drake Carne. This particular romance in the "POLDARK" saga seemed forbidden three-fold. One, the two lovers came from different classes. Morwenna was born into the impoverished, but upper-class Chynoweth family. Drake was the son of a working-class miner. Worse, their romance found itself smacked dab in the middle of the ongoing feud between Ross Poldark and George Warleggan. Morwenna was the cousin of Elizabeth Chynoweth Poldark Warleggan and cousin-in-law to George. Drake was one of Demelza Carne Poldark's younger brothers and brother-in-law to Ross. The situation of their romance grew worse, due to George's determination to marry off Morwenna to a widowed and slightly plump young vicar named Reverend Osborne Whitworth in order to secure patronage from the latter's powerful and elite family. Looking back on this story arc, it was almost the most interesting aspect of the adaptation of "The Black Moon". Thanks to the performances of Kevin McNally and Jane Wymack, who portrayed the young lovers, I found myself highly vested in this story arc. I have only two complaints about this story arc. One, instead of showing the audience that moment when Morwenna had decided to marry Whitworth, the episode's screenwriter decided to convey this revelation to television audiences . . . after the wedding had occurred. In fact, audiences learned about Morwenna's marriage to Whitworth following Ross and Drake's return from France. Graham had not only conveyed the details of the wedding to readers in his 1973 novel, he also conveyed that on their wedding night, Whitworth raped his young bride, giving a hint to the marital horrors that Morwenna would face. Considering what Ross had done to Elizabeth in Episode Fourteen of the 1975 series, I suspect that Coburn and Barry wanted to skirt controversy by avoiding this incident. Only, I found their gesture rather irrelevant, considering that sooner or later, their writers would be forced to convey that Morwenna became a victim of marital rape.The arrival of Demelza's brothers also kick started another story arc - namely Sam Carne's efforts to establish a Methodist congregation in the neighborhood. Look, I am a firm believer in religious freedom. And I thought the show runners did a mildly effective job of conveying the struggles that Sam, who had inherited his father's conversion to Methodism, faced in dealing with local prejudices against a new religious sect. Mildly effective. There were times when I found it difficult to sympathize with Sam's efforts . . . especially when he developed this habit of trying to enforce Methodist forms of worship upon a congregation inside the local Anglican church. I found it rather controlling. In fact, I was annoyed by this habit that there were times when I actually found myself sympathizing with the likes of George Warleggan, who felt outraged and threatened by Sam's efforts. If Sam had wanted a congregation that badly, he could not conduct his own services in some outdoor location . . . at least until he could find a building to serve as the neighborhood's first Methodist church?Bad luck seemed overshadow the life of Elizabeth Warleggan's second son, Valentine. One, he was born out of wedlock, thanks to Ross' rape of Elizabeth near the end of the 1975 series. He was born on the evening when a black moon appeared in the sky, prompting Agatha Poldark to declare that he was cursed. In a way, the elderly Poldark was proven right for Valentine developed rickets in his legs either in Episode Three or Episode Four. Valentine's illness produced some interesting reactions in his mother and stepfather. George Warleggan became immediately upset over the idea that his "son" was not as perfect as he had hoped the latter would be. This led George to nearly go into panic mode summon the rigid thinking Dr. Behenna to help Valentine. The doctor's treatment proved to be barbaric, when he insisted that Valentine be kept in a tight swaddling that proved to be painful for the infant. Valentine's illness produced a different reaction in Elizabeth. In one of those rare moments, Elizabeth revealed how strong-willed and almost scary she could be when she took charge of Valentine's "treatment", allowing her son great comfort in a cleaner room. And when George protested, she knocked the socks off him by insisting on helping her son "her way". Although Ralph Bates gave a first-rate performance in this scene, it was truly a great moment for actress Jill Townsend. And this scene proved to be the first among a few scenes that proved Elizabeth was a lot tougher than she had previously let on.But aside from the Drake Carne/Morwenna Chynoweth romance, the real highlight of Episodes One to Five proved to be the feud between George Warleggan and his wife's former great-aunt, Agatha Poldark. Ironically, this feud began with bad writing, thanks to Coburn and Barry's 1975 adaptation of "Warleggan" that left Trenwith burned to the ground by a mob. Why did they include this scenario that was not in the novel? In order to divert the viewers' attention from Ross' rape of Elizabeth. Without Trenwith, Coburn and Barry had no way to get George and Aunt Agatha in the same house to carry out their feud. So what did they do? They created a third Poldark estate called Penrice. According to the new narrative, Agatha was living alone at Penrice, following the death of her brother Benjamin. The Warleggan Bank repossessed the estate and Elizabeth saved Agatha from a homeless state by convincing her husband to allow the old lady to live with them. Did it work? To an extent. Despite the creation of a new estate, despite the fact that "The Black Moon" adaptation marked the first appearance of Agatha Poldark in the series . . . it worked. Somewhat. Thanks to Ralph Bates and Eileen Way's intense and skillful performance, I nearly forgot about some of the questionable writing that surrounded this story arc. And that included the final confrontation between the pair. The adaptation of "The Black Moon" ended with George and Agatha engrossed over a bitter quarrel. Agatha, who had been looking forward to a major birthday party to celebrate her 100th birthday, was informed by George that there would be no party due to his discovery that she was only 98 years old. Agatha retaliated by informing George that young Valentine's birth father was her great-nephew Ross. Dramatically, this was a great moment that led to another outburst by George and Agatha's eventual demise. However, I found myself wondering how Agatha knew that George was not Valentine's father. She had never appeared in the 1975 series. Which meant she had not been at Trenwith on the night Ross had forced himself on Elizabeth. So how did she know? Throughout Episode One, Agatha contemplated on whether Elizabeth was eight or nine months pregnant. She based this upon the position of the younger woman's baby bump. How would she have known? As a spinster and member of the upper-class, Agatha would have never been in a position to nurse a pregnant woman, let alone act as a midwife. This was simply more bullshit from Coburn and Barry in their attempt to rectify their mistakes from Series One. But I was willing to slightly overlook this, due to Bates and Way's performances and dynamic manner in which the adaptation of "The Black Moon" ended.Aside from Ross' two trips to France, I really had nothing to say about him or his wife Demelza in these five episodes. They managed to conceive daughter named Clowance during the same month of Valentine Warleggan's birth. Both Robin Ellis and Angharad Rees had one fantastic scene together in Episode Two (or Three) in which Demelza tried to convince idiot Ross not to travel to revolutionary France without the benefit of an interpreter. Before that, the pair and Caroline Penvenen attended a reception that included aristocratic refugees from France. Otherwise, they were not particularly interesting in these first five episodes. At least not to me.What else can I say about Episodes One to Five of "POLDARK"? Not much. Both Ross and Demelza Poldark were not that particularly interesting in this adaptation of "The Black Moon". If I must be honest, these five episodes really belonged to characters like George and Elizabeth Warleggan, Drake Carne, Morwenna Chynoweth and Agatha Poldark. Although Episodes Four and Five featured what many would regard as a rousing adventure in revolutionary France, I found myself more fascinated by the family dramas and romances that permeated. Overall, I was satisfied. I enjoyed this adaptation of "The Black Moon" a lot more than I did Coburn and Barry's adaptation of "Warleggan" from two years ago.
