Ranking of "GASLIT" (2022) Episodes

 

Below is my ranking of the episodes from "GASLIT", the STARZ Channel's 2022 adaptation of Season One of Leon Neyfakh's podcast called "Slow Burn", which discussed the Watergate scandal. Created by Robbie Pickering and directed by Matt Ross, the limited series starred Julia Roberts, Sean Penn and Dan Stevens:



RANKING OF "GASLIT" (2022) EPISODES



1. (1.03) "King George" - While Attorney General John Mitchell and his subordinates struggle to manage the Watergate Hotel cover-up, his wife Martha Mitchell finds herself in a dangerous situation at a California hotel. White House Counsel John Dean puts his relationship with Maureen "Mo" Kane on the back-burner.





2. (1.07) "Year of the Rat" - All hell breaks loose between Martha and John surrounding her decision to testify at the Watergate House Committee. Dean is surprised by a new legal development as convicted White House plumber G. Gordon Liddy faces his own trial in solitary confinement.





3. (1.05) "Honeymoon" - Martha finally speaks out to the media, putting a strain on her marriage. The F.B.I. comes closer to the real story behind Watergate. And Dean is forced to come clean to Mo during their Camp David honeymoon.





4. (1.02) "California" - Martha and John rekindle their love - and their power-couple working relationship at a Nixon campaign event in California. Liddy, E. Howard Hunt and their team bungle the break-in at the Watergate Hotel.





5. (1.01) "Will" - Martha struggles to balance the demands of Nixon's re-election campaign and her marriage. Dean's ambition as White House Counsel is tested when he is unknowingly drawn into a re-election campaign conspiracy for President Nixon.





6. (1.08) "Final Days" - During the last days of the Nixon Administration, Martha struggles to keep her family together in the midst of her decline.





7. (1.07) "Tuffy" - After losing his job as a security guard at the Watergate Hotel, struggles with his newfound fame as the man who had stumbled across the break-in. Martha returns to her Arkansas hometown,
while Dean testifies in the Senate.





8. (1.04) "Malum in se" - Martha and John try to enjoy a new life away from politics, but her memories of what happened to her in California continue to trouble the former. At the Republican National Convention, John Dean has a hard time moving on from his breakup with Mo.

"THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" (1952) Review

 

"THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" (1952) Review

Back in the early 1950s, the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) Studios had purchased the screen rights to "The Prisoner of Zenda", Anthony Hope's 1894 novel. Only the studio had purchased these rights from producer David O. Selznick, who had produced his own adaptation of the film back in 1937. This new adaptation proved to be very surprising not only to moviegoers familiar with the 1937 version, but to film critics as well.

Let me start from the beginning. Anyone familiar with Hope's novel would know that "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" began with the arrival of a high-born Englishman named Rudolf Rassendyll to the kingdom of Ruritania in time for the coronation of its new king, Rudolf V. The English visitor's looks attract a great deal of attention from some of the country's populace and eventually from the new king and the latter's two aides. The reason behind this attention is due to the fact that not only were the Briton and the Ruritanian monarch distant cousins, but also look-alikes. They could easily pass for twins. King Rudolf invites Rassendyll to the royal hunting lodge for dinner with him and his aides - Colonel Sapt and Captain Fritz von Tarlenheim. They celebrate this new acquaintance by drinking late into the night. Rudolf is particularly delighted with the bottle of wine sent to him by his half-brother, Duke Michael, and drinks it all himself. The next morning brings disastrous discoveries - the wine had been drugged, and King Rudolf cannot be awakened in time to attend his coronation. Fearing that Duke Michael will try to usurp the throne, Colonel Zapt convinces a reluctant Rassendyll to impersonate Rudolf for the ceremony.

"THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" had a lot going for it. I can only assume that MGM had decided to make the film in order to cash in on the popularity of Queen Elizabeth II's ascension to the throne in 1952. Director Richard Thorpe shot the film in Technicolor. And the cast featured first-rate performers like Deborah Kerr, Louis Calhern, James Mason, Jane Greer, Robert Douglas, Robert Coote and leading man Stewart Granger. In fact, MGM had specifically acquired the film rights as a project for Granger, following his success with the Oscar nominated "KING SOLOMON'S MINES". "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" proved to be a big hit for MGM. But there is one aspect of the movie that I find mind boggling . . . producer Pandro S. Berman or perhaps studio chief Dore Schary had decided to shoot the film almost identical to the 1937 version. I kid you not.

My question is why? Why did the studio suits had decided to do a scene-by-scene remake of David Selznick's 1937 adaptation. For what reason? "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" had so much going for it. Why did MGM decided to take this unoriginal route? Granted, this decision did not harm the movie's prospects at the box office. But surely the MGM suits must have realized that someone would recognize the production's lack of originality? Because of this, "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" shared not only the 1937 movie's virtues, but also some of its flaws.

The 1952 adaptation featured great production values. With the contribution of a first-rate crew, Dave Friedman did an excellent job serving as the film's production designer and re-creating the opulence of any Central European royal palace, castle or lodging. MGM's legendary art director Cedric Gibbons, along with Hans Peters had created some sumptuous sets the conveyed the movie's setting. Richard Pefferle and Edwin B. Willis' set decorations aptly supported their efforts. Another Hollywood legend, Walter Plunkett, served as the movie's costume designer. Although Plunkett's creations were not an exact replica of mid-1890s Central European fashion, I thought he managed to create some beautiful costumes. I found myself slightly put off at the sight of Jane Greer wearing a pair of early 1950s shoes, despite the lovely costume she wore. The movie also featured what I believe where the 1937 movie's main flaws - namely the uneven balance of drama and action, along with the annoying dialogue that punctuated the major sword fight in the film's climatic action scene.

The cast for "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" had provided some first-rate performances. Supporting players like Robert Coote, Kathleen Freeman, Peter Brocco, Francis Pierlot and Lewis Stone. The latter's performance as the Cardinal proved to be his second to last. Stone had also appeared in the 1922 silent adaptation of Hope's novel in the starring role. Jane Greer was very effective as Duke Michael of Strelsau's mysterious, yet passionate mistress, Antoinette de Mauban. Robert Douglas proved to be sufficiently villainous as Duke Michael, the half-brother whose resentment of King Rudolf set the whole story in motion. Deborah Kerr gave a lovely performance as the King's lovelorn and emotional cousin and betrothal, Princess Flavia. I thought Louis Calhern gave one of the film's best performance as the loyal, yet tough-minded Colonel Zapt. James Mason gave a very witty and menacing performance as Duke Michael's ruthless right-hand man, Rupert of Hentzau. However, I do have one issue regarding Mason. I thought he was slightly too old for the role at age 42-43. But the movie's star proved to be Stewart Granger, whom I believe was superb in the duel role of the charming and heroic Rudolf Rassendyll and the slightly dissolute King Rudolf V.

This brings me back to my original thought about the movie's remake of the 1937 adaptation. The production had everything right. It had an excellent cast led by an actor who seemed more suited for this story - at least to me - than the leading actor from the 1930s adaptation. Director Richard Thorpe shot the movie in Technicolor, something that producer David O. Selznick should have done back in 1937. "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" also featured excellent production values that included beautiful costumes by the legendary Walter Plunkett. So . . . WHY? Why do a shot-by-shot remake of the 1937 film? Not only did the film feature the same or similar shots from the previous adaptation, it also featured a screenplay that proved to be word-for-word identical to the 1937 adaptation. Why did Dore Schary and Pandro S. Berman make such an unoriginal decision? In doing so, both men had exposed the film to potential disdain from film critics - past, present and future.

I would say that Schary and Berman's decision to make "THE PRISONER OF ZENDA" an exact replica of the 1937 version was a major mistake. On an artistic level, I believe it was. But the movie managed to be a hit back in 1952. And if I must be honest, thanks to Richard Hope's direction and the performances led the talented Stewart Granger, I managed to enjoy it in the end . . . despite itself.

"LOST" Retrospect: "Who Ordered the Dharma Initiative Purge?"

 

"LOST" RETROSPECTIVE: "WHO ORDERED THE DHARMA INITIATIVE PURGE?"

Eight years ago, I had written this article about a major incident on the ABC television series, "LOST". This incident happened to focus on the murders or "Purge" of the scientific research organization known as the Dharma Initiative. It happened on December 19, 1992; nearly twelve years before the series began and before the crash of Oceanic Airlines 815 flight.

In the Season Five episode, (5.10) "He's Our You", Oceanic Flight 815 survivor and later, time traveler Sayid Jarrah tried to murder young Ben Linus in 1977. In the following episode, another Oceanic time traveler, Dr. Jack Shephard, refused to treat the badly wounded Ben, who was near death. Eventually, two other time traveling castaways, James "Sawyer" Ford and Kate Austen, had taken Ben to the Others aka the Hostiles aka the Natives, a group of island inhabitants who served as its protectors on the behalf of the main protector Jacob, for treatment via Dr. Juliet Burke's instructions. Within a decade-and-a-half, Ben ended up ousting future billionaire Charles Widmore as leader of the Others.

Ever since the series had first aired, many fans had been uncertain of when Ben's tenure as the Others' leader had began - before or after the Purge. As I had stated earlier, the Purge occurred in December 1992, on the same day as Ben's birthday and during the same month as the Others' rejection of Widmore as their leader. Many fans and television critics had automatically assumed Ben had ordered the Purge. I have heard comments that compared Ben to Adolf Hitler. I have also heard comments that compared Ben’s younger self to a "young Hitler". Many people have claimed that it was Ben who had ordered the deaths of the Dharma Initiative members. However, I have my doubts.

During Seasons Three and Four, Ben had offered contradicting comments on whether or not he had ordered the Dharma Initiative Purge. In (3.23) "Through the Looking Glass", he had claimed responsibility of the Purge to Jack:

"Not so long ago, Jack. I made a decision that took the lives of over forty people in a single day"

Unfortunately, Ben had contradicted this claim in two other episodes. In the Season Three episode, (3.20) "The Man Behind the Curtain", he had said this to Oceanic survivor John Locke, while he displayed the remains of Dharma members at a mass grave:

"This is where I came from, John. These are my people. The Dharma Initiative. They came here seeking harmony, but they couldn't even co-exist with the Island's original inhabitants. And when it became clear that one side had to go, one side had to be purged, I did what I had to do. I was one of the people that was smart enough to make sure that I didn't end up in that ditch. Which makes me considerably smarter than you, John."

Ben never claimed responsibility for ordering the Purge to Locke. He had confessed to participating in the Purge. That same episode made it clear that his participation involved killing his abusive father, Dharma Initiative worker, Roger Linus. In fact, Ben also made the same thing clear in the Season Four episode, (4.11) "Cabin Fever", when he had the following conversation with another Oceanic castaway, Hugo "Hurley" Reyes:

HURLEY: So... This is where you shot Locke and left him for dead, huh?
BEN: Yes, Hugo, I was standing right where you are now when I pulled the trigger. Should have realized at the time that it was pointless, but... I really wasn't thinking clearly.
[Hurley steps back a little]
HURLEY: Is that why you killed all these people, too?
BEN: I didn't kill them.
HURLEY: Well, if the Others didn't wipe out the Dharma Initiative --
BEN: They did wipe them out, Hugo, but it wasn't my decision.
HURLEY: Then whose was it?
BEN: Their leader's.
HURLEY: But I thought you were their leader.
BEN: Not always.

Interesting. He had admitted to trying to kill Locke in "The Man Behind the Curtain". But he denied being the one who had ordered the Purge. Also, Ben had been truthful when he told Hurley that he had not always been the Others' leader. The series had featured three other leaders - the ageless Richard Alpert (who eventually became the future leaders' advisor), Eloise Hawking and Widmore. Although some fans remain convinced that Ben had ordered the Purge, there are a good number of fans who hold Widmore responsible.

Thanks to a flashback in the Season Five episode called (5.12) "Dead Is Dead" - viewers learned that Widmore had definitely been the leader of the Others back in 1988. And in another Season Four episode called (4.09) "The Shape of Things to Come", viewers learned in a flash forward scene set in London that Ben had taken the leadership of the Others away from Widmore:

WIDMORE: I know who you are, boy. What you are. I know that everything you have you took from me. So... Once again I ask you: Why are you here?
BEN: I'm here, Charles, to tell you that I'm going to kill your daughter. Penelope, is it? And once she's gone... once she's dead... then you'll understand how I feel. And you'll wish you hadn't changed the rules.
[Widmore shifts in his bed.]
WIDMORE: You'll never find her.
[Ben turns to leave.]
WIDMORE: That island's mine, Benjamin. It always was. It will be again.

I found it interesting that Widmore had regarded the island as "his". And there were other aspects of Widmore that I found interesting. The Season Five episode, (5.03) "Jughead", had revealed Widmore as a member of the Others, as far back as 1954 (when he was seventeen years-old). As one of the Others, Widmore (along with Richard and Hawking) had participated in a previous purge - that of U.S. Army personnel, who had brought a hydrogen bomb nicknamed "Jughead" with them to the island. On other occasions, Widmore had this inclination to kill anyone he deemed a threat to the island's secrecy. He killed a fellow Other to prevent the latter from leading Locke, Sawyer and Juliet to Richard's location in 1954. The 1988 flashback from "Dead Is Dead" revealed Ben's refusal to kill Danielle Rousseau and her baby, Alex. Instead, he claimed Alex as his child and threatened Danielle to stay away. This decision had angered Widmore, who had expected Ben to kill both. Why were Danielle and Alex's deaths that important to Widmore? Ironically, Widmore finally got his way regarding Danielle and Alex, thanks to Martin Keamy, the mercenary he had sent to the island to snatch Ben in Season Four.

So, when did Ben Linus replace Charles Widmore as leader of the Others? Before December 19, 1992? Or after? The photograph below from "The Man Behind the Curtain" hints that Ben had remained a worker for the DHARMA Initiative during that period, despite joining the Others sometime in the 1980s:



But had Ben assumed leadership of the Others by then? If not, does that mean Charles Widmore was still leading the Others in December 1992? Both the LOSTPEDIA and the WIKIPEDIA sites claimed that Richard Alpert had led the Others' purge against the Dharma Initiative in 1992. But neither site made it clear who had ordered the Purge. And "Dead Is Dead" never gave a clear date on Widmore's exile.

One would assume my choice for the man responsible for ordering the Purge would be Widmore. And you would be right. There seemed a good deal of evidence making him responsible. He had already participated in an earlier purge back in 1954. Ben had revealed time and again his willingness to use violence - even kill those he deemed a threat to himself or for emotional reasons. But the series had also revealed Widmore's willingness to do the same and especially kill in the name of protecting the island. And that included ordering Ben to kill an emotionally unstable Danielle Rousseau and her infant child. Widmore had also sent the murderous Martin Keamy to the island in late Season Three-Season Four to snatch Ben. He had claimed to Locke in (5.07) "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham" that he had done so to give Locke the opportunity to become the Others' new leader. Yet, his words to Locke contradicted his words to Ben in London, when he had claimed the island as "his". This scene had occurred nearly a year or more after the events of Season Four.

There is also the matter of whether Keamy had another agenda - namely to kill any of the Oceanic survivors that remained. In "Cabin Fever" he had demanded Sayid reveal the number of other Oceanic survivors and their location. Fortunately, the latter had refused. In a confrontation with the freighter's Captain Gault, Keamy revealed his intentions to "torch" the island. Some claimed that this had been Keamy's angry reaction to his men being attacked by the Smoke Monster. Yet, in (4.08) "Meet Kevin Johnson", Ben had accused the freighter crew of plans to snatch him and kill the island's inhabitants. The only freighter personnel in the room - spiritualist Miles Straume - had remained unusually silent. In the following episode, (4.09) "The Shape of Things to Come", Miles claimed that Keamy and his men were around to serve as security guards for a captured Ben. But there was the revelation that Widmore had set up a false location for the missing Oceanic 815 plane - with a plane wreck and dead bodies included. This is merely an assumption of mine, but I believe Widmore had sent Keamy to not only snatch Ben, but to kill the remaining Oceanic survivors as well to maintain the narrative. I found a good deal of clues that led me to suspect Widmore had ordered the Dharma Purge.

After watching the series more than once, I find it increasingly difficult to hold Ben responsible for the Purge. His actions against the Oceanic castaways had featured spying, kidnapping, harassment, threats and manipulation. He rarely resorted to murder - aside from his attempt to kill Locke and his order to kill Sayid, Jin Kwon and Bernard Nader during the events in the Season Three finale, (3.23) "Through the Looking Glass, Part 2". If Ben had been truly capable of ordering the Purge, he would have wiped out the Oceanic survivors (or tried to) after getting Jack to remove the tumor from his spine. The man had proved incapable of following Widmore's orders to kill Danielle and Alex.

In the end, viewers know that Charles Widmore had been the leader of the Others in 1988-89, when he had ordered Ben Linus to kill Danielle Rosseau and her infant daughter. Viewers know that Ben had refused. Viewers also know that Richard Alpert had led a group of Others in the Purge against the U.S. Army in 1954. He also led the Others' purge against the Dharma Initiative on December 19, 1992. On that same date, Ben killed his father, Roger Linus, in a similar manner – by toxic gas. And viewers know that Ben had eventually replaced Widmore and exiled the latter off the island. Personally, I suspect Widmore had ordered the Purge against Dharma. But I suspect it was an order he had not issued lightly, given the number of years the Others had been in conflict with the Dharma Initiative and the dangerous nature of latter's experiments regarding the island's electromagnetic energy.

But I cannot say with any authority that Widmore had ordered the Dharma Initiative Purge. If we only knew exactly when Widmore had been exiled, perhaps this mystery of the Purge will finally be cleared.

"BELGRAVIA" (2020) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from the 2020 ITV/Epix limited series, "BELGRAVIA", an adaptation of Julian Fellows' 2016 novel. Written by Fellowes and directed by John Alexander, the series starred Tasmin Greig, Harriet Walter and Philip Glennister:

"BELGRAVIA" (2020) Photo Gallery

"EMILY" (2022) Review

 

"EMILY" (2022) Review

I have been aware of only four productions that served as biopics for the Brontë family. I have seen only three of these productions, one of them being a recent movie released in theaters last year. This latest movie, the first to be written and directed by actress Frances O'Connor, is a biopic about Emily Brontë titled "EMILY".

This 2022 movie began with a question. While Emily Brontë laid dying from tuberculosis, her older sister Charlotte asks what had inspired her to write the 1847 novel, "Wuthering Heights". The story flashed back to 1839, when Charlotte returned home to the Haworth parish in West Yorkshire to visit before her graduation from school. Emily attempts to re-connect with the older sister about her fictional works, but Charlotte merely dismisses her creations as juvenile activities. Around the same time, their father Patrick, the parish's perpetual curate receives a new curate name William Weightman. While Charlotte, younger sister Anne and several young women seem enamored of the handsome newcomer, only Emily is dismissive of him. Emily accompanies Charlotte to the latter's school to learn to become a teacher and their brother Bramwell goes to study at the Royal Academy of Arts. Both Emily and Branwell return shortly to Haworth after as failures. When Branwell manages to find a job as a tutor, the Reverend Brontë charges William to provide French lessons to Emily. What began as lessons in French and religious philosophy lessons, eventually evolves into a romantic entanglement between the pair.

"EMILY" managed to garner a good deal of critical acclaim upon its release in theaters, including four nominations from the British Independent Film Awards. It also won three awards at the Dinard British Film Festival: Golden Hitchcock, Best Performance Award for leading actress Emma Mackey and the Audience Award. I have no idea how much "EMILY" had earned at the U.K. box office. But in North America (the U.S. and Canada), it earned nearly four million dollars. Regardless of this . . . did I believe "EMILY" was a good movie? Did it deserved the accolades it had received not only from film critics, but also many moviegoers?

I cannot deny that the production values for "EMILY" struck me as first-rate. I believe Steve Summersgill did a first-rate job as the film's production designer. I thought he had ably re-created Britain's West Yorkshire region during the early 1840s with contributions from Jono Moles' art direction, Cathy Featerstone's set decorations and the film's art direction. Nanu Segal's photography of the Yorkshire locations created a great deal of atmosphere with moody colors that managed to remain sharp. I found myself very impressed with Michael O'Connor's costume designs. I thought he did an excellent job in not only re-creating fashions from the end of the 1830s to the late 1840s, he also ensured that the costumes worn by the cast perfectly adhered to their professions and their class, as shown below:



However, according to a relative of mine, Emily Brontë's fashion sense had remained stuck in the mid-to-late 1830s, something that the 2016 movie, "TO WALK INVISIBLE" had reflected. On the other hand, "EMILY" had the famous author wearing up-to-date fashion for someone of her class:



And I must admit that I found those moments featuring actress Emma Mackay wearing her hair down . . . in an era in which Western women did no such thing . . . very annoying. Otherwise, I certainly had no problems with the movie's production values. The movie also included a fascinating scene in which Emily had donned a mask and pretended to be the ghost of the Brontës' late mother during a social gathering. The scene reeked with atmosphere, emotion and good acting from the cast. I also found the scene well shot by O'Connor, who was only a first-time director.

"EMILY" also featured a first-rate cast. The movie featured solid performances from the likes of Amelia Gething as Anne Brontë, Adrian Dunbar as Patrick Brontë, Gemma Jones as the siblings' Aunt Branwell, Sacha Parkinson, Philip Desmeules, Veronica Roberts and other supporting cast member. I cannot recall a bad performance from any of them. The movie also featured some truly excellent performances. One came from Fionn Whitehead, who gave an emotional performance as the Brontë family's black sheep, who seemed overwhelmed by family pressure to succeed in a profession or the arts. Alexandra Dowling gave a subtle, yet charged performance as Charlotte Brontë, the family's oldest sibling (at the moment). Dowling did an excellent job of conveying Charlotte's perceived sense of superiority and emotional suppression. I wonder if the role of William Weightman, Reverend Brontë's curate, had been a difficult one for actor Oliver Jackson-Cohen. I could not help but notice that the role struck me as very complicated - moral, charming, intelligent, passionate and at times, hypocritical. Not only that, I believe Jackson-Cohen did an excellent job of conveying the different facets of Weightman's character. The actor also managed to create a dynamic screen chemistry with the movie's leading lady, Emma Mackey. I discovered that the actress had received a Best Actress nomination from the British Independent Film Awards and won the BAFTA Rising Star Award. If I must be honest, I believe she earned those accolades. She gave a brilliant performance as the enigmatic and emotional Emily, who struggled to maintain her sense of individuality and express her artistry, despite the lack of support from most of her family.

"EMILY" had a great deal to admire - an excellent cast led by the talented Emma Mackey, first-rate production designs, and costumes that beautifully reflected the film's setting. So . . . do I believe it still deserved the acclaim that it had received? Hmmm . . . NO. No, not really. There were two aspects of "EMILY" that led me to regard it in a lesser light. I thought it it was a piss poor biopic of Emily Brontë. I also found the nature of the whole romance between the author and William Weightman not only unoriginal, but also unnecessary. Let me explain.

As far as anyone knows, there had been no romance - sexual or otherwise - between Emily Brontë and William Weightman. There has never been any evidence that the two were ever attracted to each other, or one attracted to the other. Many have discovered that the youngest Brontë sister, Anne, had been attracted to Weightman. In fact, she had based her leading male character from her 1947 novel, "Agnes Grey", on the curate. There have been reports that Charlotte had found him attractive. But there has been no sign of any kind of connection between him and Emily. Why did Frances O'Connor conjure up this obviously fictional romance between the movie's main character and Weightman. What was the point? Did the actress-turned-writer/director found it difficult to believe that a virginal woman in her late 20s had created "Wuthering Heighs"? Did O'Connor find it difficult to accept that Emily's creation of the 1847 novel had nothing to do with a doomed romance the author may have experienced?

Despite Mackey's excellent performance, I found the portrayal of Emily Brontë exaggerated at times and almost bizarre. In this case, I have to blame O'Connor, who had not only directed this film, but wrote the screenplay. For some reason, O'Connor believed the only way to depict Brontë's free spirited nature was to have the character engage in behavior such as alcohol and opium consumption, frolicking on the moors, have the words "Freedom in thought" tattooed on one of her arms - like brother Branwell, and scaring a local family by staring into their window at night - again, with brother Branwell. This is freedom? These were signs of being a "free spirit"? Frankly, I found such activities either immature or destructive. Worse, they seemed to smack of old tropes used in old romance novels or costume melodramas. In fact, watching Emily partake both alcohol and opium reminded me of a scene in which Kate Winslet's character had lit up a cigarette in 1997's "TITANIC", in order to convey some kind of feminist sensibility. Good grief.

What made O'Connor's movie even worse was her portrayal of the rest of the Brontë family. As far as anyone knows, Reverend Brontë had never a cold parent to his children, including Emily. Emily had not only been close to Branwell, but also to Anne. And Branwell was also close to Charlotte. All three sisters had openly and closely supported each other's artistic work. Why did O'Connor villainize Charlotte, by transforming her into this cold, prissy woman barely capable of any kind of artistic expression? Why have Charlotte be inspired to write her most successful novel, "Jane Eyre", following the "success" of "Wuthering Heights", when her novel had been published two months before Emily's? Why did she reduce Anne into the family's nobody? Was it really necessary for O'Connor to drag Charlotte's character through the mud and ignore Anne, because Emily was her main protagonist? What was the damn point of this movie? Granted, there have been plenty of biopics and historical dramas that occasionally play fast and loose with the facts. But O'Connor had more or less re-wrote Emily Brontë's life into a "re-imagining" in order to . . . what? Suggest a more romantic inspiration for the creation of "Wuthering Heights"?

I have another issue with "EMILY". Namely, the so-called "romance" between Brontë and Weightman. Or the illicit nature of their romance. Why did O'Connor portray this "romance" as forbidden? A secret? I mean . . . why bother? What was it about the pair that made an open romance impossible for them? Both Brontë and Weightman came from the same class - more or less. Weightman had been in the same profession as her father. And both had been college educated. Neither Emily or Weightman had been romantically involved in or engaged to someone else. In other words, both had been free to pursue an open relationship. Both were equally intelligent. If the Weightman character had truly been in love with Emily, why not have him request permission from Reverend Brontë to court her or propose marriage to Emily? Surely as part of the cleric, he would have considered such a thing, instead of fall into a secretive and sexual relationship with her. It just seemed so unnecessary for the pair to engage in a "forbidden" or secret romance. Come to think of it, whether the film had been an Emily Brontë biopic or simply a Victorian melodrama with fictional characters, the forbidden aspect of the two leads' romance struck me as simply unnecessary.

What else can I say about "EMILY"? A rich atmosphere filled the movie. The latter featured atmospheric and beautiful images of West Yorkshire, thanks to cinematographer Nanu Segal. It possessed a first-class production design, excellent costumes that reflected the movie's 1840s setting and superb performances from a cast led by the talented Emma Mackey. I could have fully admired this film if it were not for two aspects. One, I thought it was a shoddy take on a biopic for author Emily Brontë that featured one falsehood too many. And two, I found the secretive and "forbidden" nature of Brontë's false romance with the William Weightman character very unnecessary. Pity.