"PENMARRIC" (1979) Review

 

"PENMARRIC" (1979) Review

British author Susan Howatch had a prolific career as a novelist for roughly thrity-nine years. Three of them were family sagas, whose characters paralleled the lives of one of Britain's royal families - the Plantagenets. The first of those novels, 1971's "Penmarric", ended up being the only one adapted for the screen.

Paralleling the life of King Henry II of England, his wife Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine and three sons; "Penmarric" told the story of the Castallack family through two generations, spanning between 1890 and 1945. The story was told from the viewpoint of five characters - landowner-historian Mark Castallack, his older wife Janna Castallack, Mark's younger illegitimate son Adrian Parrish, his and Janna's third son Philip Castallack and their youngest child, Jan-Yves Castallack. When the BBC adapted the novel in 1979 as a twelve-part miniseries, the screenwriters changed the story's setting between the mid-to-late 1860s and 1940. Apparently, the miniseries' producer(s) wanted to include the backstory of Mark's mother, Maud Penmar Castallack, and her failed attempts to secure inheritance of the Penmarric estate. The miniseries had included another major change. The screenwriters ended the Castallacks' saga in 1940, five years before Howatch did in her novel.

Overall, I thought "PENMARRIC" proved to be a good, solid adaptation of Howatch's novel. Aside from the changes, there seemed to be no other major diversions from the story's main saga. Through twelve episodes, I thought the miniseries did an excellent job of conveying the fortunes and misfortunes of the Castallack family. I also found myself impressed by how the production conveyed how three particular incidents - Maud Penmar Castallack's failure to gain inheritance of her father's estate, the violent breakdown of Mark and Janna Castallack's marriage and a major disaster involving one of the Penmarric's tin mines - had such major consequences on the family's fortunes and their lives.

In a production as large as "PENMARRIC", it was only natural I would encounter scenes I found very enjoyable or satisfying. Some of my favorite sequences featured the Penmars' reactions to the death of Maud's only brother, Maud's verbal conflicts with both her father and her Penmar cousins, Mark and Janna's volatile courtship, Philip and Adrian's conflicts following the breakup of the Castallack marriage, Jan-Yves' affair with his widowed sister-in-law Rebecca, his relationship with his first wife, Felicity Cranforth, Philip's relationship with the miner Alun Trevose, the Senen Garth mine disaster and Jan-Yves' ever changing relationship with both Philip and Janna. I believe these aspects of the miniseries highlighted the screenwriters' ability to re-capture the complex nature of Howatch's characters and their relationships. This especially seemed to be the case of the marriage between Mark and Janna, whose failed marriage stemmed from class division, resentment, bigotry and a violent act that permanently damaged their relationship. Fiction tends to romanticize mixed marriages, especially those between people from different classes.

The production values for "PENMARRIC" seemed to veer from solid to first-rate. It seemed clear to me that the film stock used for the miniseries may not have been of best quality. I could tell that some of the footage - namely the exterior scenes - have begun to show signs of aging. I am aware that "PENMARRIC" had aired thirty-five years ago. But I have seen television productions from both sides of the Atlantic that have aged a lot better. However, I cannot deny that I found Erik Messerschmidt's cinematography a bit mind-blowing. I thought he did an excellent job of utilizing the Cornwall and Devon countryside for the miniseries' exterior shots. I also have a high regard for the costume designs team of Anne Bailey, Doreen James and Janet Tharby. Each woman designed costumes for at least four episodes and all three did an excellent job of recapturing the fashions of the late Victorian era and the early 20th century.

Most of the performances featured in "PENMARRIC" struck me as solid . . . competent, including those from Gene Foad, Patsy Kensit, Ralph Bates, Kim Braden, John Patrick, Lesley Dunlop, Shirley Steedman, a young Alan Cox and especially Rosalind Ayres. There were one or two that struck me as a bit over-the-top. One of those "dramatic" performances came from John Castle, who portrayed Mark Penmar - Maud's father and young Mark Castallack's maternal grandfather. Castle has always struck me as a very skillful and subtle actor. Yet, he seemed to have given an exaggerated portrayal of an eccentric Victorian landlord. Another performance that rubbed me the wrong way came from Holly de Jong, who portrayed the volatile Rebecca Rosalyn Castallack - Mark and Janna's daughter-in-law, Hugh Castallack's widow and Jan-Yves Castallack's sister-in-law and mistress. De Jong had her moments as excellent acting, especially in those poignant scenes featuring Rebecca and Jan-Yves. But when it came to Rebecca's more emotional moments, de Jong seemed incapable of reigning in or controlling her performance.

There were a handful of performances in "PENMARRIC" that struck me as exceptional. One of them came from Angela Scoular, who portrayed the ambitious and single-minded Maud Penmar Castallack. I thought Scoular did an excellent job in conveying Maud's more prominent traits - her arrogance, eccentricity, ambition and emotional desire for the Penmarric estate - while maintaining control of her performance. Thomas Ellice struck me as equally skillful as the domineering Mark Casallack, whose arrogance, self-involved and controlling nature led him to make questionable decisions that had major impacts on his family. I might as well be frank. Mark proved to be one of my least favorite characters in the story. Yet, Ellice still managed to convey certain traits in Mark's character that made him occasional sympathetic in my eyes. One of my favorite characters in this story happened to be Janna Castallack, the beautiful daughter of a Cornwall fisherman, who became Mark's wife. I might as well be frank. Janna was no saint. She could be evasive, reactionary and quick-tempered. I thought Annabel Leventon did a superb job of conveying Janna's emotional journey - from the financially struggling young widow who became acquainted with a well-born man of a higher class, to the angry wife estranged from her husband and finally to the aging matriarch of the Castallacks who struggled to hold her family together.

One of the most complicated characters in Howatch's novel proved to be Philip Castallack, Mark and Janna's third son and the latter's favorite. Superficially, Philip struck me as a hot-tempered and righteous (perhaps too righteous) personality, who could be very obsessive over people or issues that mattered to him. I thought Rupert Frazer did a superb job in capturing these many facets of Philip's personality in a performance that struck me as both emotional and skillful. At times, I found myself wondering if Philip Castallack might prove to be Frazer's best role. My favorite character in the 1971 novel ended up being the youngest Castallack sibling, Jan-Yves. Jan-Yves proved to be such an entertaining, cynical, yet complicate character. I had been worried if the miniseries would cast the right actor for this role. Eric Deacon ended up portraying Jan-Yves. Granted, he was handsome in compare to the plain-looking Jan-Yves from the novel. But I might as well admit it . . . Deacon did an excellent job in conveying everything about Jan-Yves I found fascinating. Everything, which included Jan-Yves' wit, cynicism, insecurities, intelligence, and vindictiveness. If someone ever decides to do another adaptation of Howatch's novel, I hope and pray that person would find someone just as perfect as Deacon was in the role.

If I had any serious issues regarding "PENMARRIC", it would have to be the narrative. At first I did not mind the narrative's detailed look into Maud's backstory, her attempts to acquire the Penmarric estate for herself and how she ended up securing her son Mark as her cousin's heir. At first. But this entire sequence featured a great number of flashbacks that dragged into Mark's own narrative. Come to think of it, his initial romance with his mistress Rose Parrish, his courtship of Janna, his discovery of Janna's relationship with his father and his encounters with his Penmar cousins were conveyed within three-and-a-half episodes. Mark and Jenna's wedding did not occur until at least by mid-Episode Four. I do not recall Howatch taking this long to reach the couple's nuptials in her novel. It took three-and-a-half episodes for Mark and Janna to get married. It took fourteen years and one-and-a-half episodes for their marriage to fall apart. Wow.

Due to the producers' decision to stretch out the beginning of "PENMARRIC", the miniseries featured twelve episodes. Unfortunately, not even twelve episodes were enough for the screenwriters to do full justice to Jan-Yves Castallack's own arc. They cut it short once Jan-Yves became the master of Penmarric. Yes, the miniseries had conveyed his courtship of and marriage to Isabella Clay. But not long after the wedding, the miniseries did not take long to jump to the outbreak of World War II and the final scene. The miniseries never bothered to reveal the fate of Jan-Yves' sister-in-law, Rebecca Castallack. It never bothered to convey the clash between Jan-Yves and Rebecca's son, the churlish Jonas. It never bothered to reveal Jonas' fate, let alone Jan-Yves' wartime experiences. And if that was not enough, the series' portrayal of Isabella Clay Castallack proved to be nothing like her literary counterpoint. The literary Isabella was a ethereal, yet pragmatic woman with a penchant for witticisms. This television version of Isabella proved to be another one of those mild-mannered, "angel-in-the-house" types straight from a Charles Dickens novel.  In other words . . . BORING. I do not blame actress Deborah Makepeace. I blame the producer(s) and screenwriters.  As much as I had enjoyed the miniseries, both its portrayal of Isabella Castallack and the ending proved to be very disappointing to me.

Okay . . . yes, "PENMARRIC" had some disappointments that prevented it from being a truly excellent adaptation of Susan Howatch's 1971 novel. But the 1979 miniseries had virtues that outweighed what I believe were its flaws. Aside from a problematic beginning and ending, I really did enjoy "PENMARRIC", thanks to the production values, the team of screenwriters and a talented cast led by Annabel Leventon, Thomas Ellice, Rupert Frazer and Eric Deacon. However, I would like to see the BBC produce a better effort.

"PENMARRIC" (1979) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "PENMARRIC", the BBC's 1979 adaptation of Susan Howatch's 1971 novel. Directed by Tina Wakerell and Derek Martinus, the twelve-part miniseries starred Annabel Leventon, Thomas Ellice, Rupert Frazer and Eric Deacon:

"PENMARRIC" (1979) Photo Gallery

"MARY POPPINS" (1964) Review

 

"MARY POPPINS" (1964) Review

Looking at the 1964 movie about a magical nanny, one would be amazed that it took nearly 20 years to make it. I suspect that many did not predict it would become critically acclaimed. But if one is ever interested in the behind-the-scenes production of the film, one would have to read about it . . . or watch the 2013 movie, "SAVING MR. BANKS". I am here to discuss the actual movie, "MARY POPPINS".

Based upon a selection of short stories written by P.L. Travers, "MARY POPPINS" tells the story of how two Edwardian Age children named Jane and Michael Banks, who request a particular kind of nanny after their latest one quits her job after enduring one too many pranks from the two siblings. Their father, a banker named George Banks, is too busy with his career and projecting the image of an ideal Englishman in order to pay attention to them. Their mother, although slightly more concerned about their welfare, is either caught up in the Suffregette Movement or too busy adhering to their father's demands. After the departure of their latest nanny, Katie Nanna, Jane and Michael write a letter describing what they want in a new nanny. But Mr. Banks has different ideas - a nanny who is an effective disciplinarian - and tears up their letter.

However, the children's letter magically reaches a woman named Mary Poppins. She appears at the Banks' home the following morning to apply (or appoint herself) as Jane and Michael's new nanny. Despite his initial reservation, Mr. Banks is impressed by Mary Poppins' firm manner and hires her. With the help of friend named Bert, Mary Poppins introduces the Banks children to a new magical world. In doing so, she also manages to shake up Mr. Banks, his household and his livelihood.

I first saw "MARY POPPINS" as a child and immediately fell in love with it. For years, I have regarded the movie as one of the highlights of my childhood and one of the best films to be released from the Disney Studios. But recent criticism of Mary Poppins as a sugar-coated character of no substance, and of the film as an infantilization of P.L. Travers' work and vision has led me to wonder if my childhood opinion of "MARY POPPINS" may have been overrated. After all, I had spent years judging the movie from the viewpoint of a child. How would I judge this movie from an adult who has spent the last ten to twenty years viewing movies with a critical eye?

As many have recently pointed out, the Disney Studios made a good number of changes to Travers' stories. They also left out a great deal. To point out "all" of the changes and deletions would require an essay. And I am not interested in writing such an essay. Were there any aspects of "MARY POPPINS" that I disliked? Honestly? No. But there are aspects of the movie's production that I wish could have been handled in a slightly different manner.

For quite some time, I never understood why "MARY POPPINS" was shot at the studio's Burbank lot, instead of at England's Pinewood Studios, where 1963's "DR. SYN, ALIAS THE SCARECROW" and "THE THREE LIVES OF THOMASINA" were filmed. Like the two 1963 films, "MARY POPPINS" mainly featured a cast of British actors. Only four cast members were American born - Dick Van Dyke, Ed Wynn, Jane Darwell and Reta Shaw. I feel that if the movie had been shot in Great Britain, its exterior shots of the Banks and Uncle Albert's neighborhoods and the City of London would have featured a bit more details - add more oomph to the movie's visual British style. As for Tony Walton's costume designs, I must admit that I found them rather charming, if not particularly mind blowing. However . . . I could not help but wonder why Mary Poppins' skirts seemed a tad short for 1909-10 fashions. And I also end up wondering why Winifred Banks' wardrobe seemed so limited. Unless I am mistaken, actress Glynis Johns wore only three costumes in "MARY POPPINS". In fact, I suspect she wore one particular costume twice. And Walton designed her costumes either in yellow, powder blue or a combination of both colors. Although I found Johns' costumes rather charming, they also struck me as a bit limited.

Although the film's production designs struck me as a bit limited, I cannot help but admire the film's cinematography and visual style. Edward Colman earned a much-deserved nomination for his colorful and sharp photography for the film. Colman's photography also enhanced Tony Walton's matte paintings created by Peter Ellenshaw. Since "MARY POPPINS" was filmed on the Disney Studios backlot in Burbank, Walt Disney and director Robert Stevenson not only had to depend upon Carroll Clark and William H. Tuntke's art direction, but also the visual effects and special effects teams. But "MARY POPPINS" was set in Edwardian London. And since Disney, Stevenson and the film's crew could not film in Great Britain, the production team had to rely on Ellenshaw's beautiful and colorful matte paintings to add to the film's visual look for its setting, as shown in the following images:

 

"MARY POPPINS" may not have been free of any flaws, but it still remains one of my favorite movies of all time. I had earlier pointed out that some critics have pointed out the movie's failure to be completely faithful to Travers' stories. Honestly? I do not care. It would have been near impossible for any screenwriter to be completely faithful. Travers did not write a single novel. She wrote a series of short stories and novellas. And since it is impossible for a screenplay to be completely faithful to a novel or stage play, what on earth made these critics believe Bill Walsh and Don DaGradi could have been completely faithful to Travers' stories and still fashion a single narrative for the film? Ridiculous!

Personally, I am amazed that Walsh and DaGradi managed to wring a single narrative out of so many short stories in the first place. That must have not been an easy task. As the 2013 movie, "SAVING MR. BANKS", had pointed out, Mary Poppins' purpose within the Banks' household was to save George Banks and his relationship with his children. And she did this in the most interesting way. Mary Poppins used her role as the children's nanny to indirectly affect the family's patriarch. Instead of utilizing traditional means to care for the children, Mary Poppins exposed Jane and Michael to her world - using magic to clean the nursery, an excursion into a sidewalk chalk drawing of the English countryside, and an afternoon tea party on the ceiling with Mary Poppins' Uncle Albert. The children's revelations of their activities naturally shook up Mr. Banks, along with the magical nanny's subversive and cheerful impact upon the Banks' household.

Unable to accept Mary Poppins' impact upon his family and servants, Mr. Banks threatened to fire her. And this is where Mary Poppins, as the film's trickster, pulled off a pièce de résistance. Before Mr. Banks could fire her, Mary Poppins managed to manipulate him into agreeing to take the children on an outing to his bank. However, the night before this outing, she decides to sing a song to the children about an old beggar woman who sits on the steps of St Paul's Cathedral, selling bags of breadcrumbs to passers-by for two pence a bag,so that they can feed the many pigeons that surround her. Between the song and the children spotting the Bird Woman on their way to their father's bank set in motion the chaos that followed and Mary Poppins' plan to save Mr. Banks' relationship with his family. Brilliant.

If the narrative that Walsh and DaGradi had created from Travers' short stories had struck me as brilliant, the songs written by Robert and Richard Sherman seemed even more so. Aside from the performances, the Sherman Brothers' songs seemed to be the heart and soul of the film. If someone was to ask me which song was my favorite, I honestly could not answer that question. Aside from two of them, I found most of their songs very memorable . . . even to this day. One of their songs - "Chim Chim Cher-ee" - was nominated for the Best Song Oscar and won. However, I must admit to being surprised that the beautiful and rather haunting "Feed the Birds" failed to garner any kind of nomination or award. Perhaps it was not as fully appreciated back in 1964-65 as it is today.

Both "Jolly Holiday" and "Step in Time" were not only entertaining songs, but they also provided the background for some very first-rate dance numbers. The first featured the very agile Dick Van Dyke and a quartet of animated pigeons. I found this dance sequence both funny and a joy to watch. You have to see it to believe it. As for the second song, it was featured in a show stopping dance routine that involved Van Dyke, Julie Andrews . . . and chimney sweeps. Between the song, the dance routines choreographed by the husband-and-wife team of Marc Breaux and Dee Dee Wood, and the London rooftops background, the entire sequence is one of the film's highlights.

Another addition to the magic of "MARY POPPINS" proved to be its cast. The movie featured excellent voice performances in the chalk picture sequence from the likes of J. Pat O'Malley, Marni Nixon, Dallas McKinnon, and Alan Napier. Even Julie Andrews and David Tomlinson also provided voice performances. The supporting and cameo performances featured in this film were marvelous. The movie included excellent performances from Reginald Owen as the cankerous Admiral Boom; Elsa Lancaster as the disgruntled Katie Nanny; Arthur Treacher as the kindly Constable Jones; Arthur Malet as Mr. Dawes Jr., one of the board members of the bank that employed Mr. Banks; Hermione Baddeley and Reta Shaw as Ellen and Mrs. Brill, the Banks' gregarious maid and cook; and a poignant cameo by Jane Darwell, who was convinced by Disney to make a brief appearance as the Bird Lady.

"MARY POPPINS" marked the second teaming of Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber, who portrayed the magical nanny's charges, Jane and Michael Banks. It seemed pretty simple to me why Disney had used this pair in three movies. Not only were they were first-rate actors who more than kept up with the likes of Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke and David Tomlinson; they also had a great screen chemistry. In P.L. Travers' books, Mrs. Banks was an easily intimidated woman who could barely maintain control of her household. In this movie, Mrs. Banks was a woman more occupied by her suffragette activities than her children. And she was portrayed by actress Glynis Johns. The latter gave a marvelous performance as a woman who seemed to hide her inability to protect her children from their father's neglect with a few sympathetic words and her own brand of neglect.

If I had to select the most complex character in this movie, it would have to be Mr. George Banks of 17 Cherry Tree Lane and the Dawes Tomes Mousley Grubbs Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. Thanks to actor David Tomlinson in his first appearance in a Disney film, movie audiences were treated to a superb performance. Tomlinson skillfully transformed George Banks from a highly driven and disciplined man who was obsessed with order to an affectionate family man who had found a new lease on life. It almost seems criminal that the actor never received any kind of acting nomination for his performance.

Unlike Tomlinson, Dick Van Dyke did receive a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor, thanks to his performance as Bert, Mary Poppins' closest friend and jack-of-all-trades. Whenever Van Dyke's performance in "MARY POPPINS" is mentioned, people seemed to comment on his Cockney accent. Granted, it was not perfect. But I have never considered it to be a travesty. I have noticed that whenever he spoke words with a long vowel, his Cockney accent seemed exaggerated. Otherwise, I had no problems. And if someone like Sean Connery can win an Oscar for portraying an Irish immigrant with a Scots accent, I see no reason why Van Dyke's portrayal of Bert should only be condemned for a questionable Cockney accent. Besides . . . accent aside, Van Dyke gave a superb performance in so many other ways. He captured Bert's charm, wit and a slight talent for manipulation with such perfection. Van Dyke was also given the opportunity to portray another character in the film - namely Mr. Banks' elderly boss, Mr. Dawes Senior of the Dawes Tomes Mousley Grubbs Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. How often does one find an actor in his late 30s effectively portraying a 90-something year-old man? In my personal experience, very rarely. And to put the cherry on the icing, Van Dyke was never criticized for his British accent, while portraying Mr. Dawes . . . for good reason. Although there have been hints of his talent as a song-and-dance man in his first television series, "THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW", this movie really provided an opportunity to convey how truly talented he could be.

Julie Andrews managed to capture the big prize for her portrayal of the film's leading character, Mary Poppins. She won the Academy Award for Best Actress. Whereas many were distracted from Van Dyke's performance because of his accent, others have lamented on how Andrews' portrayal of the magical nanny seemed a far cry from her literary version. Granted, the latter was a plain-looking woman, somewhat more pompous and stricter. Although Andrews' Mary Poppins was more beautiful looking and slightly warmer than her literary counterpoint, she could still be quite sharp-tongued - especially when disciplining Jane and Michael and somewhat reserved. Andrews also did a great job in conveying Mary Poppins' no nonsense behavior and massive talent for emotional manipulation. That one scene in which the magical nanny manipulated Mr. Banks into taking his children on an outing to his bank was just a joy to watch. Thanks to her skillful and award-winning performance, Andrews managed to convey the reason why Mary Poppins is regarded as a trickster.

What else can I say about "MARY POPPINS"? Over fifty years have passed since the movie's initial release, and it is still - at least to me - a magical movie to watch. Yes, it had a few flaws. What movie did not? But thanks to P.L. Travers' stories, Robert Stevenson's marvelous direction, Robert and Richard Sherman's music, the movie's visual effects teams and the superb cast led by Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke; "MARY POPPINS" remained timeless and magical as ever.

"MARY POPPINS" (1964) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "MARY POPPINS", the 1964 Disney adaptation of P.L. Travers' series of children's books. Directed by Robert Stevenson, the movie starred Oscar winner Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke:

"MARY POPPINS" (1964) Photo Gallery