"OTHER MEN'S WOMEN" (1931) ReviewAdultery is rarely treated with any kind of maturity in fiction - whether in novels, plays, movies and television. I am not saying that adultery has never been portrayed with any maturity. It is just that . . . well, to be honest . . . I have rarely come across a movie, television series, novel or play that dealt with adultery in a mature manner. Or perhaps I have rarely come across others willing to face fictional adultery between two decent people with some kind of maturity. If one simply glanced at the title of the 1931 movie, "OTHER MEN'S WOMEN", any person could assume that he or she will be facing one of those salacious tales from a Pre-Code filled with racy dialogue, scenes of women and men stripping to their underwear or morally bankrupt characters. Well, "OTHER MEN'S WOMEN" is a Pre-Code movie. But if you are expecting scenes and characters hinting sexy and outrageous sex, you are barking up the wrong tree."OTHER MEN'S WOMEN" is about a young railroad engineer named Bill White, who seemed to have a drinking problem. When he gets kicked out of his boarding house, after falling back on his rent, Bill is invited by fellow engineer and friend Jack Kulper to stay with him and his wife Lily. All seemed to be going well. Bill managed to fit easily into the Kulper household. He stopped drinking. And he got along very well with both Jack and Lily. In reality, his relationship with Lily seemed to be a lot more obvious than with Jack. And this spilled out one afternoon, when in the middle of one of their horseplays while Jack was out of the house, Bill and Lily exchanged a passionate kiss. Realizing that he was in love with Lily, Bill moved out and left Jack wondering what had occurred. Matters grew worse and eventually tragic, when Jack finally realized that Bill and Lily had fallen in love with each other.From the few articles I have read, there seemed to be a low regard for this film. Leading lady Mary Astor had dismissed it as "a piece of cheese" and praised only future stars James Cagney and Joan Blondell. Come to think of it, so did a good number of other movie fans. Back in 1931, the New York Times had described the film as "an unimportant little drama of the railroad yards". Perhaps "OTHER MEN'S WOMEN" was unimportant in compare to many other films that were released in 1931 or during that period. But I enjoyed it . . . more than I thought I would."OTHER MEN'S WOMEN" is not perfect. First of all, this is an early talkie. Although released in 1931, the film was originally shot and released to a limited number of theaters in 1930. And anyone can pretty much tell this is an early talkie, due to the occasional fuzzy photography. Also, director William Wellman shot a few of the action scenes - namely the fight scene between Bill and Jack, along with Bill and another engineer named Eddie Bailey - in fast motion. Or he shot the scenes and someone sped up the action during the editing process. Why, I have no idea. There were a few times when members of the cast indulge in some theatrical acting. And I mean everyone. Finally, I found the resolution to the love triangle in this film a bit disappointing. Considering that divorce was not as verboten in the early 20th century, as many seemed to assume, I do not see why that the whole matter between Bill, Lily and Jack could have been resolved with divorce, instead of tragedy. In the case of this particular story, I found the tragic aspects a bit contrived.Otherwise, I rather enjoyed "OTHER MEN'S WOMEN", much to my surprise. Repeating my earlier statement, I was impressed by how screenwriter Maud Fulton, with the addition of William K. Wells' dialogue; treated the adulterous aspects of the love triangle with taste and maturity. What I found even more impressive is that the three people involved were all likeable and sympathetic. I was rather surprised that this film only lasted 70 minutes. Because Wellman did an exceptional job with the movie's pacing. He managed to infuse a good deal of energy into this story, even when it threatened to become a bit too maudlin. Wellman's energy seemed to manifest in the cast's performance. Yes, I am well aware of my complaint about the performers' occasional penchant for theatrical acting. But overall, I thought they did a very good job. Future stars James Cagney and Joan Blondell had small supporting roles as Bill's other friend Eddie Bailey and his girlfriend, Marie. Both did a good job and both had the opportunities to express those traits that eventually made them stars within a year or two. I was especially entertained by Blondell's performance, for she had the opportunity to convey one of the movie's best lines:Marie: [taking out her compact and powdering her face] Listen, baby, I'm A.P.O.
Railroad worker at Lunch Counter: [to the other railroad worker] What does she mean, A.P.O.?
Marie: Ain't Puttin' Out!I noticed that due to Cagney and Blondell's presence in this film, many tend to dismiss the leading actors' performances. In fact, many seemed to forget that not only was Mary Astor a star already, she was a decade away from winning an Oscar. Well, star or not, I was impressed by her portrayal of the railroad wife who finds herself falling in love with a man other than her own husband. She gave a warm, charming and energetic performance. And she portrayed her character's guilt with great skill. I could also say the same about leading man, Grant Withers. He is basically known as Loretta Young's first husband. Which is a shame, because he seemed like a first-rate actor, capable of handling the many emotional aspects of his character. Whether Bill was drunk and careless, fun-loving, romantic or even wracked with guilt, Withers ably portrayed Bill's emotional journey. I also enjoyed Regis Toomey's performance as the emotionally cuckolded husband, Jack Kulper. I mainly remember Toomey from the 1955 musical, "GUYS AND DOLLS". However, I was impressed by how he portrayed Jack's torn psyche regarding his best friend and wife.I am not going to pretend that "OTHER MEN'S WOMEN" is one of the best films from the Pre-Code era . . . or one of director William Wellman's best films. Perhaps that New York Times critic had been right, when he described the film as "an unimportant little drama of the railroad yards". But I cannot dismiss "OTHER MEN'S WOMEN" as a mediocre or poor film. It is actually pretty decent. And more importantly, thanks to the screenplay, Wellman's direction and the cast, I thought it portrayed a love triangle tainted by adultery with a great deal of maturity.
"CELEBRATING UNORIGINALITY"Many people love to praise FOX science-fiction series, "THE ORVILLE" to the sky. Many praise it for being the epitome of the "traditional aspects" of the STAR TREK franchise. Even more so than the latest entry of the latter, "STAR TREK DISCOVERY". I have my suspicions on why so many love to praise "THE ORVILLE" to the detriment of the CBS Access series. I suspect that both sexism and racism are two of the reasons behind this sentiment . . . especially in regard to the leading lady of "STAR TREK DISCOVERY". However, there is some aspect or style of "THE ORVILLE" that makes me understand why many others would make this claim about the series being "traditional Trek". Unfortunately, I do not think this aspect has proven to be beneficial to the FOX series.How can I be anymore blunt? To me, "THE ORVILLE" is basically a remake of the second Trek series, "STAR TREK NEXT GENERATION", but with a touch of leading actor Seth MacFarlane's style of humor. I just wish the series could be different. OfferA DIFFERENT STYLE in its presentation of episodes. It had recently occurred to me that "NEXT GENERATION" reminded me a lot "STAR TREK THE ORIGINAL SERIES" than any of the other Trek shows. In terms of format and the style of shows, it is almost seems like a remake or continuation of the 1966-69 series. Perhaps this is not surprising considering that the 1987-94 series, along with "THE ORIGINAL SERIES", was created by Gene Roddenberry. This could be a reason why it seems more beloved by the franchise's fandom and producers, save for the first series. My recent viewing of "THE ORVILLE" made me suspect that it pretty much repeated what "NEXT GENERATION" had done in terms of storytelling and format. Although both shows were willing to explore the different quirks and minor flaws of its main characters, both seemed hellbent upon portraying Humans as generally more superior than other alien races. Both shows seemed willing to put humanity on a pedestal. The Moclus race, as personified by the Lieutenant Commander Bortus character, bears a strong resemblance to the Klingons of the 24th century. And Bortus seems to be another Lieutenant (later Commander) Worf. Even the relationship between MacFarlane's Captain Ed Mercer and Adrianne Palicki's Commander Kelly Grayson almost seems like a re-hash of the Commander William Riker and Counselor Deanna Troi relationship, as portrayed by Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sartis in "NEXT GENERATION". And yet, the Trek shows that followed "NEXT GENERATION" seemed to be willing to offer something different. "STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE" was set on a space station and possessed a narrative structure that very slowly developed into a serial format by its third season. "STAR TREK VOYAGER" featured a crew traveling alone on the other side of the galaxy that comprised of Starfleet officers and crewmen, Maquis freedom fighters, an ex-convict/former Starfleet officer, two aliens and a former Borg drone. Superficially, "STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE" seemed a lot like "THE ORIGINAL SERIES" and "NEXT GENERATION", but it was set a century before 1966-69 series - during the few years before the establishment of the Federation, and it featured a serialized narrative about a major war during its third season. "STAR TREK DISCOVERY” proved to be a Trek series that has been serialized since its first episode. More importantly, its main character IS NOT a star ship or space station commander. The Trek shows that had followed "NEXT GENERATION" have been more willing to explore the uglier side of the Federation, Starfleet and Humanity; than the first two series. This has been especially apparent in "DEEP SPACE NINE", "VOYAGER" and "DISCOVERY". And aside from "VOYAGER, the Trek shows that followed "NEXT GENERATION" have been willing to utilize a serialized format - something that many fans seemed to lack the patience to endure lately. Most of this criticism toward a serialized narrative has been directed against "DISCOVERY". However, I personally find this ironic, considering that the other Trek shows have used this narrative device with the same quality as the other shows. At least in my eyes. I suspect that this heavy criticism toward "DISCOVERY" has more to do with the show's lead than its writing quality. Even "VOYAGER" has been willing to serialized some of its episodes on a limited scale, especially during its mid-Season Four. Officially, "THE ORVILLE" is not a part of the Trek franchise. Why does it feel that it is? And Why does it have to feel like it? Because its creator and star, Seth MacFarlane, had this need to pay homage to "NEXT GENERATION"? Or even "THE ORIGINAL SERIES"? Why? Some advocates of "THE ORVILLE" have pointed out the series' style of humor and the fact that it features a LGBTQ couple. However, "DISCOVERY", which had premiered during the same month and year, also features a LGBTQ couple. And previous Trek shows and movies have featured or hinted LGBTQ romance and/or sexuality in the past - namely "DEEP SPACE NINE"and the 2016 movie, "STAR TREK BEYOND". Even television series like "BABYLON 5" and "BATTLESTAR: GALACTICA" have featured or hinted LGBTQ issues. But more importantly, both shows, along with "FARSCAPE" and others in the science-fiction genre have managed to be completely original both style and substance. Why did MacFarlane feel he had to literally copy "NEXT GENERATION" when other Trek shows have managed to be more original? The only aspect of "THE ORVILLE" that I truly find original is its occasional use of twisted humor. And even that has appeared even less during the series' second season. This is what I find so frustrating about "THE ORVILLE". One, I feel that it is basically "traditional Trek" disguised as another science-fiction franchise. Even worse, it seems like a close rip-off of "STAR TREK NEXT GENERATION". I see nothing complimentary about this. I find it sad that so many people do. And I find it even sadder that so many people are willing to put "THE ORVILLE" on a pedestal for . . . what? For the series' lack of originality? Because these fans want to cling to the past? This is just sad. No . . . not, sad. Pathetic. At least to me.
"MURDER ON THE LINKS" (1996) ReviewI have never read Agatha Christie’s 1923 novel called "Murder on the Links". But I have seen the 1996 television adaptation that starred David Suchet as Hercule Poirot. On several occasions. While on holiday in Deauville, France with his close friend, Captain Arthur Hastings, Hercule Poirot is approached by a wealthy businessman for help. Paul Renauld, whose assets include several South American business interests and the hotel where Poirot and Hastings are staying, claimed that someone – probably from South America – has made threats against his life. He asks Poirot to visit his home for consultation on the following morning. When Poirot meets the appointment, he discovers that Renauld has been kidnapped and Madame Renauld, left tied and gagged in their bedroom. The kidnapping case transforms into murder, when Hastings and his fellow golfers stumble across Renauld’s body on a golf course. Poirot also makes the acquaintance of Monsieur Girand of the Surete, an arrogant police official that views himself as the better detective. This clash of egos leads to a bet between the pair over who would solve the Renauld case first.The case involves a bevy of suspects that include:*Madame Eloise Renauld, the victim’s wife
*Jack Renauld, the victim’s stepson, who disliked him
*Marthe Daubreuil, Jack’s fiancée, who was frustrated by the victim’s opposition to the engagement
*Madame Bernadette Daubreuil, Marthe’s mother and the former lover/possible partner-in-crime of the victim
*Bella Duveen, Jack’s former lover, who may have mistaken the victim for him
*Mr. Stonor, the victim’s private secretary, who is in love with Madame RenauldI would never consider "MURDER ON THE LINKS" as one of the best Christie adaptations I have seen. The movie’s prologue – set ten years earlier – almost made it easy to figure out the murderer’s identity. Second, the plot seemed hampered by one too many red herrings that involved mistaken identities and mistaken assumptions. And these red herrings nearly made the plot rather convoluted. I suspect that screenwriter Anthony Horowitz feared that the movie’s prologue nearly gave away the murderer’s identity and inserted these red herrings to confuse the viewers. Then again . . . I never read the 1923 novel and it is possible that Horowitz was simply following Christie’s original plot. Yet, the red herrings were nothing in compare to the line of reasoning that led Poirot to solve the case. The clues that he followed struck me as vague and slightly contrived.But despite these flaws, I still manage to enjoy "MURDER ON THE LINKS" whenever I watch it, thanks to Andrew Grieves’ direction. One, I actually enjoyed the movie’s atmosphere and setting in Deauville. It gave the movie a touch of elegance without the series’ hallmark Art Deco style that had become a bit heavy-handed after this movie first aired. Production designer Rob Harris and cinematographer Chris O’Dell managed to capture the elegant mood of mid-1930s France without being too obvious about it. Andrea Galer’s costumes also struck me as near perfect. I especially enjoyed those costumes worn by the female cast members. The production’s pièce de résistance for me was the bicycle race featured two-thirds into the story. It struck me as a perfect blending of Grieves’ direction, editing, photography, production design, costumes and performances – especially by the extras.Aside from one or two complaints, I thought the cast’s performances were first-rate. David Suchet gave his usual competent performance as the Belgian detective, Hercule Poirot. But I was especially impressed by Hugh Fraser’s portrayal of Arthur Hastings, Poirot’s close friend. "MURDER ON THE LINKS" provided a strong opportunity for him to shine as a man who falls in love with one of the suspects. Damien Thomas was excellent as the desperate and very complex Paul Renauld. In fact, his character seemed to be the lynch pin of the entire movie – even after his character was killed off twenty minutes into the film. Diane Fletcher seemed remarkably subtle and charming as Renauld’s beloved wife, Eloise. Portraying someone as ambiguous as Jack Renauld must have been a bit tricky, but Ben Pullen did a good job in capturing the character’s amiable, but callow and self-involved personality. Sophie Linfield was solid as Jack’s current love and fiancée, Marthe Daubreuil. However, she did not exactly rock my boat. Neither did Terence Beesley and Bernard Latham, who portrayed Renauld’s private secretary Stonor and Lucien Bex of the police, respectively. I also have to comment on Jacinta Mulcahy’s portrayal of Hasting’s love interest – the beautiful songstress, Bella Duveen. Mulcahy portrayed Bella as an effective minor femme fatale as Jack Renauld’s rejected lover. And she and Fraser made a surprisingly effective romantic pair.The two performances that left me scratching my head came from Katherine Fahey and Bill Moody. I wish I could say that Fahey’s portrayal of Bernadette Daubreuil – Renauld’s former lover and Marthe’s mother – made an effective femme fatale. But I cannot. I cannot accuse her of hammy acting, but I thought she tried a bit too hard to project the image of a mysterious femme fatale who was blackmailing her former lover and possible partner-in-crime. But the one performance that really disappointed me came from Bill Moody’s portrayal of Monsieur Giraud of the Paris Sûreté and Poirot’s professional rival. I understood that he was supposed to be a boorish and arrogant man. However, I still had a problem with Moody’s performance. His portrayal of a French police detective seemed to border on parody. It was like watching a caricature of the John Bull persona tried to pass off as a Frenchman. It simply rang false to me."MURDER ON THE LINKS" was not perfect. Although I found the murder mystery intriguing, Poirot’s solution to the crime and the clues that led him to that solution struck me as slightly vague and improbable. I also had a problem with the performances of two cast members. But Arthur Hasting’s romance with one of the suspects, the elegant setting of Deauville and the performances of David Suchet, Hugh Fraser and Damien Thomas made "MURDER ON THE LINKS" worth watching.
