"JULIE AND JULIA" (2009) Review

 

Below is my review of Nora Ephron's 2009 comedy-drama, "JULIE AND JULIA", about the life of celebrity chef, Julia Child and the New York blogger who was inspired by her, Julie Powell:





"JULIE AND JULIA" (2009) Review

Written and directed by Nora Ephron, "JULIE AND JULIA" depicts events in the life of chef Julia Child during the early years in her culinary career; contrasting with the life of a woman named Julie Powell, who aspires to cook all 524 recipes from Child's cookbook during a single year. Ephron had based her screenplay on two books - "My Life in France", Child's autobiography, written with Alex Prud'homme; and "Julie & Julia: My Year of Cooking Dangerously" by Powell. Two-time Oscar winner Meryl Streep portrayed Julia Child and two-time Oscar nominee Amy Adams portrayed Julie Powell.

The plot is simple. A New Yorker named Julie Powell, who works for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to help victims of the 9/11 bombings, has become disatisfied with her life when she realizes that her friends (or should I say acquaintances?) have more exciting professional lives. To help her deal with her apathy and knowing that she is an excellent cook, husband Eric (Chris Messina) suggests that she create a blog to record her experiences in cooking a recipe (each day) from Julia Child's famous cookbook, " Mastering the Art of French Cooking". Woven in to Powell's story is Child's experiences as the wife of an American diplomat in Paris during the late 1940s and early 1950s. The movie also reveals Child's entry into the world of French cuisine and her attempts to write and publish a cookbook on French cooking for Americans.

"JULIE AND JULIA" was not a movie that exactly shook my world. It was a warm and engaging look into the lives of two women whose interest in French cuisine attracted the attention of the public. In the case of Julia Child, her decade long attempt to write a cookbook on French cuisine led to her becoming a television celebrity and icon. Julie Powell's attempt to recount her experiences in preparing the recipes from Child's cookbook led to her blog, media attention and this movie. I have read a few reviews of the movie and most critics and filmgoers seemed more interested in Child's early years as a chef in France than they were by Powell's experiences with her blog. Granted, the Child sequences were a lot of fun, due to Streep's performance of the charming, enthusiastic and fun-loving chef. But I must admit to being surprised by how much I had enjoyed Powell's experiences with her blog. I realize that I am going to be bashed for this, but Powell's experiences seemed to have more emotional substance to them.

I am not saying that the Powell sequences were better written or more entertaining. But due to Ephron's portrayal of the Texan-turned-New Yorker, the Powell sequences seemed more complex and emotionally satisfying. In other words, Amy Adams - who portrayed Powell - had the meatier role. Most critics and fans of the film would disagree with me. After all, it seemed very obvious that Streep was having a ball portraying the enthusiastic and fun loving Julia Child. Her ability to easily befriend many of the French and her deepening love for French cuisine made it quite easy to see how she quickly became a celebrity. But Ephron never really delved into the darker aspects of Child's character or marriage - except touch upon the chef's disappointment at being childless. She certainly did with Powell. And Amy Adams did a superb job in re-creating a very complex and occasionally insecure personality. But I suspect that when the awards season rolls around the corner, it will be Streep who will earn most of the nominations . . . or perhaps all of them.

The rest of the cast of "JULIE AND JULIA" were just as excellent as Streep and Adams. Stanley Tucci portrayed Child's diplomat husband, Paul Child. He gave a warm, yet more restrained performance as a man happily caught up in his wife's growing interest in becoming a chef; yet at the same time, conveyed his character's unhappiness with his failing diplomatic career due to a change in the country's political winds. Like Adams, Chris Messina had a more difficult role as Powell's husband, Eric Powell. Unlike Child, he has to deal with his frustration in his wife's growing obsession with her blog . . . along with her occasional bouts with arrogance, insecurity and self-absorption. And at one point in the film, he loses his temper in spectacular fashion. I also enjoyed Linda Emond's performance as French cook Simone Beck, who co-authored Child's cookbook; and Mary Lynn Rajskub as Powell's acerbic friend, Amy. One other performance that really caught my eye belonged to Jane Lynch as Julia Child's equally extroverted sister, Dorothy McWilliams. Watching Lynch and Streep portray the McWilliams sisters take Paris by storm was a joy to behold.

Although I had enjoyed "JULIA AND JULIA", I had a few problems with it. One, it was too long. The movie's pacing started out fine. Unfortunately, I was ready for it to end at least twenty minutes before it actually did. By 100 minutes into the film, the pacing began to drag. And although I had no problems with the movie's alternating storylines, I felt that it failed to segue smoothly between Child and Powell's stories. The jump from Powell's story to Child's and back seemed ragged and uneven to me. And as I had pointed out before, the story surrounding Child's story seemed less emotionally complex and more frothy in compare to Powell's story, giving me another reason to view the movie as uneven.

Despite its flaws, "JULIE AND JULIA" is an entertaining film that many who are into cooking or food would enjoy. Both Meryl Streep and Amy Adams gave first-rate performances. And the movie also gave filmgoers a peek into life for Americans in post-World War II Paris. In the end, I found the movie enjoyable, but not earth-shattering. I would recommend it.

"THE PELICAN BRIEF" (1993) Review

 

"THE PELICAN BRIEF" (1993) Review

In my review of "THE FIRM", I had once referred to the period in which bestselling novels written by attorney-novelist John Grisham as "Age of Grisham". This same period - mainly the 1990s - also saw the release of movie adaptations of Grisham's novels. Released in 1993, "THE FIRM" was not the only Grisham released that year. Another Grisham adaptation was released six months later - "THE PELICAN BRIEF".

Directed by Alan J. Pakula and based on Grisham's 1992 novel, "THE PELICAN BRIEF" told the story of a Tulane University law student named Darby Shaw writes a legal brief detailing her theory on why two Supreme Court Justices had been murdered. The elderly and infirmed Justice Rosenberg, a liberal, had been shot inside his home, along with his nurse. The Republican-appointed Justice Jensen was found inside a gay porn movie theater, strangled to death. Both had been murdered by a paid assassin named Khamel. Out of curiosity, Darby engages in research of Rosenberg and Jensen's records and writes a legal brief speculating they were not killed for political reasons. Darby links the assassinations to an oil tycoon named Victor Mattiece, who wants to rearrange the Supreme Court in order to win a case. Matticece had discovered oil beneath a Louisiana habitat in the marshlands but was blocked from drilling due to a lawsuit filed to protect an endangered sub-species of brown pelicans. Because Rosenberg and Jensen were both pro-environmentalists, Darby suspected they were killed. Mattiece also has ties to the U.S. President, due to being the latter's biggest financial contributor. At the same time, Washington Herald reporter Gray Grantham receives a call from an informant named "Garcia", who claims to have information about the assassinations. Although Gray manages to snap a photograph of "Garcia", the latter disappears without a trace.

Matters eventually grow worse for Darby. She gives the brief to her law professor and lover Thomas Callahan, who in turn gives a copy to his good friend Gavin Verheek, Special Counsel to the Director of the FBI. It does not take long for Darby's brief - dubbed as "the Pelican Brief" - to circulate among the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and the White House. Not much time passes before a car bomb kills Callahan at a New Orleans parking lot. Since Darby was outside of the car during the explosion, she manages to avoid Callahan's fate. Realizing that her "Pelican brief"may have been accurate, Darby goes into hiding and reaches out to Verheek for assistance and Gray for more information about the brief's circulation. Unfortunately, Verheek ends up murdered in New Orleans. Darby finally decides to meet with Gray before the pair sets out to find "Garcia" in Washington D.C., the one person who has the evidence to link Mattiece with the justices' deaths.

With a running time of 141 minutes, "THE PELICAN BRIEF" is a pretty long movie. I do wonder if today's younger moviegoers would have the patience to watch a political thriller that runs over two hours long. Personally, the movie's running time did not bother me. I thought it gave director/screenwriter Alan J. Pakula enough time to explore the film's narrative in great detail - Rosenberg and Jensen's murders, Darby's research and preparation for her legal brief, how her brief ended up being circulated around the nation's capital, Gray's attempt to connect with and later find "Garcia", Darby's evasion of the attempts on her life, the pair's search for "Garcia"'s identity and his evidence against Victor Mattiece. I am happy to say that Pakula did not take any major shortcuts to transform a three hundred-and-eighty-seven-page novel into movie that ran over two hours. Some might suggest that Pakula could have shortened the movie a bit. I am not certain I would agree with that. I would not have enjoyed the film more if he had edited the narrative. However, I do wish Pakula could have stepped up the pacing a bit. I have seen movies that were just as long or even longer than "THE PELICAN BRIEF". And yet, they moved at a faster pace and were never in danger of putting me to sleep.

The idea of a CEO or business tycoon sanctioning one or two political murders for the profit may seem a bit implausible to some. It seemed more than plausible to me. One only has to study either U.S. or World History to realize how business or corporate greed has played a role in politics, wars, crime or the combination of all three. But what I found a little implausible about Gresham's plot was the idea of a law student's legal brief about the recent murders of two Supreme Court justices being circulated about the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and the White House. One, why would Darby research the two murders and create a legal brief that accuses a powerful CEO of sanctioning the murders? As if she was engaged in a school project? And why did Thomas handed over her brief to a F.B.I. official, who happened to be a close friend? As an incentive for the agency to investigate? I found that hard to believe, considering that Thomas' attitude toward the brief seemed to be that of a proud boyfriend revealing how clever his girlfriend is to a friend. What I am saying that the vibe behind Darby's initial investigation and Thomas' decision to circulate the brief seemed wrong . . . to casual. I wish Greham had created a stronger reason for Darby to investigate the two justices' deaths and for Thomas to pass her brief to the F.B.I. Or Pakula could have created stronger reasons behind both actions, when he wrote the adaptation.

"THE PELICAN BRIEF" featured several action sequences that I found pretty solid. Most of these sequences occurred in the movie's first half and featured a team of assassins hired to kill her. I found them rather tense, especially the chase scene that led into a crowd celebrating Mardi Gras in New Orleans' French Quarter. But they did not blow my mind. The one action sequence that really impressed me proved to be the last one that featured the assassins' attempt to kill both Darby and Gray. I found it odd that the assassins, who had been following the pair for nearly 24 hours, did not make any attempt until after they got their hands on "Garcia"'s evidence against Mattiece and the latter's law firm. A relative of mine had suggested the assassins not only wanted to kill Darby and Gray, but also destroy the evidence they had acquired. Perhaps she was right. If so, I do wish that the movie had indicated this. If it had, would someone please point out the scene?

I must admit that there is something about the film's settings I found unusual. "THE PELICAN BRIEF" is set in New Orleans of the Deep South and Wahington D.C. and Maryland, which are part of the Upper South. Yet, I never sensed any Southern vibe in this film. Not even when the film focused around New Orleans' famous French Quarter. There seemed to be something ethereal about Pakula's filmmaking style that made me forget this movie is set in the South. Perhaps it was Stephen Goldblatt's sleek cinematography or the movie's slight generic tone. This strikes me as a pity, considering the movie's two major locations - New Orleans and Washington D.C. - usually convey more colorful and atmospheric vibes in other films.

But I must admit that I enjoyed Pakula's portrayal of the political characters in this film. The characters radiated an ambiguous, yet cynical vibe that hinted Darby and Gray's mistrust of them. This especially seemed to be the case of both the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. Directors' attitudes toward the White House and the President's controlling Chief of Staff Fletcher Coal. The two agencies' reactions to Darby's legal brief struck me as very interesting. F.B.I. Director Denton Voyles seemed to relish the idea of investigating the connection between the President and Mattiece, due to his dislike of Coal. Yet, he had allowed the President to convince him to delay the investigation as long as possible. On the other hand, C.I.A. Director Bob Gminski seemed to have a more paranoid reaction to Rosenberg and Jensen's deaths, along with Darcy's brief by assigning agents to shadow Darcy in the immediate aftermath of the brief's revelation.

The White House officials featured in this film - from the slightly high-strung President to his cool and calculating Chief of Staff, and finally to the array of smarmy White House officials and private lawyers who either expressed disbelief that a law student may have solved the mystery behind the two justices' murders or amusement over the brief's potential impact on the President's administration. The cynicism that permeated from the politicians and lawyers in this tale seemed to touch the journalists featured in the movie. Even the leading man, Gray Gratham, seemed to harbor a touch of cynicism, despite his somewhat "noble" facade. As for his editor-in-chief, Smith Keen, the man and his tongue seemed to radiate cynicism - despite any fondness he might have for Gray. It occurred to me that the cynicism, ruthlessness and desperation from the characters featured in the Washington D.C. served the movie's narrative very well, especially for its Washington D.C. setting.

The performances featured in "THE PELICAN BRIEF" seemed to range from solid to first-rate. But if I must be honest, there did not seem to be any performance that really impressed me, save for a handful. What was it about the acting that failed to blow my mind? I believe this situation had a lot to do with some of the dialogue featured in the movie. How can I put this? There were times when I found myself wincing from some pretty pretentious dialogue that struck me as unnecessary. Despite these occasional bursts of pretentious dialogue, I had no problems with the cast's performances. Well . . . most of them.

"THE PELICAN BRIEF" featured solid performances from the likes of Sam Shephard, Tony Goldwyn, Cynthia Nixon, John Heard, Anthony Heald, William Atherton, Jake Weber, Nicholas Woodeson, Casey Briggs, Christopher Murray, Ralph Cosham, John Finn and Stanley Anderson. There were some performances that I found entertaining or interesting. John Lithgow gave a witty and entertaining performance as The Washington Herald's editor, Smith Keen. Sonny Jim Gaines struck me as equally entertaining in his brief role as Gray Grantham's White House mole, Sarge. Hume Cronyn gave an effective performance as the ill, yet sharp-tongued Justice Rosenberg. James K. Sikknig's portrayal of F.B.I. Director Denton Voyles struck me as very skillfully ambiguous. But I believe the film's best performance came from Robert Culp, whom I believe gave an excellent performance as the President. The latter did an excellent job in portraying a slightly weak, yet vacillating head-of-state who depended too heavily on his Chief of Staff for decisions.

You might ask . . . what about the film's leads, Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington. I thought the latter gave an excellent portrayal of the stubborn, yet stalwart Gray Grantham. There were times when I found Washington's Gray nearly too ideal. But I would attribute that flaw to Pakula's screenplay and not the actor. Thankfully, both the screenplay and Washington managed to infuse a little ambiguity in Gray's character during his first hunt for the informant "Garcia". I thought Julia Roberts gave a very solid performance as the film's other protagonist, Darby Shaw. I was impressed how her performance transformed Darby from an outgoing and warm woman, to one who became withdrawn and paranoid through grief, and her struggles to stay one step ahead of assassins. But I have two major problems with Roberts' performance. One, her Darby Shaw seemed another one of her characters throughout the 1990s that were put pedestals by the end of her films. And two, although she seemed to be a competent actress, there were times I found her performance slightly wooden. Whenever Darby experienced an emotional trauma, Roberts had this tendency to change her performance - but without any smooth or gradual transitions. Her mood changes almost seemed a case of "acting by the numbers or the beat". Fortunately, it did not take Roberts very long to outgrow this trait.

I have never considered "THE PELICAN BRIEF" as my favorite adaptation of a John Grisham novel. One, I feel that the movie's pacing struck me as a bit too slow, especially in the first half. The movie's screenplay featured some unnecessary pretentious dialogue. I wish the film's settings could have been a bit more colorful. And there were some acting decisions that I found questionable. Fortunately, the movie's virtues outweighed its flaws. Thanks to Alan J. Pakula's screenplay and direction, along with an excellent cast led by Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington, "THE PELICAN BRIEF" proved to be a first-rate political thriller that featured a very interesting and original tale.

"THE PELICAN BRIEF" (1993) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "THE PELICAN BRIEF", the 1993 adaptation of John Grisham's 1992 novel. Adapted and directed by Alan J. Pakula, the movie starred Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington:



"THE PELICAN BRIEF" (1993) Photo Gallery

"SPOTLIGHT" (2015) Review

"SPOTLIGHT" (2015) Review

Have you ever watched a movie on DVD or cable that you regret not seeing in the movie theaters? I have. In fact, I have seen at least three films nominated for Best Picture . . . after they had been released on DVD. One of those films was the actual Best Picture winner, "SPOTLIGHT". 

Directed by Oscar nominee Thomas McCarthy, "SPOTLIGHT" told the story of The Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team, the oldest continuously operating newspaper investigative journalist unit in the United States and its investigation into cases of widespread and systemic child sex abuse in the Boston area by numerous Roman Catholic priests. The story began in 2001 when a new editor named Marty Baron is hired by The Globe. During a staff meeting, Baron brought up the subject of a Boston priest named John Geoghan, who was sexually abusing children and nothing was done - by the Church or the city's law enforcement - to stop him. Baron urged the "Spotlight" team to investigate. Initially believing that they are following the story of one priest who was moved around several times, the "Spotlight" team eventually uncovered a pattern of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests throughout Massachusetts and an ongoing cover-up by the Boston Archdiocese, Cardinal Bernard Law.

After watching "SPOTLIGHT", I easily understood why it had received a good deal of acclaim and award nominations. It really is a first rate movie. Due to the fact that the movie focused on a newspaper investigation team, it allowed moviegoers to enjoy the team's step-by-step investigation into the priests and their victims in the Boston area. I might as well say it. The movie reminded me of the 1975 Oscar nominee, "ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN" . . . and in a good way. I have not seen a really good movie about investigative journalism in a long time. I also have to commend director Thomas McCarthy and his co-writer Josh Singer for conveying the "Spotlight" team's discoveries via interviews and records in a well-paced manner. McCarthy did not rush the"Spotlight" team's investigation, but he did not drag it as well. In the end, the investigation itself struck me as a fascinating mystery that developed into a horror story that left me feeling appalled.

"SPOTLIGHT" not only received nominations for McCarthy's direction and the screenplay that he wrote with Singer, it also received a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Mark Ruffalo and Best Supporting Actress nomination for Rachel McAdams. The pair portrayed two members of the "Spotlight" team - Michael Rezendes and Sacha Pfeiffer. I will admit that both gave first-rate performances. The movie also featured excellent performances from Liev Schreiber as Marty Baron, who started the whole thing in motion; John Slattery as Assistant Managing Editor Ben Bradlee Jr.; Brian d'Arcy James as reporter Matt Carroll; Jamey Sheridan as Catholic Church attorney Jim Sullivan; and Billy Crudup as attorney Eric MacLeish. 

Ironically, my two favorite performances in the movie did not receive any Academy Award or Golden Globe nominations. One came from Stanley Tucci, who portrayed Mitchell Garabedian, a sharp-tongued attorney who represented many sexual abuse victim. I enjoyed Tucci's sardonic, yet understated performance and how his character pointed out how many Boston officials cooperated with the Catholic Church to cover up the abuses. I also enjoyed Michael Keaton's ambiguous portrayal of editor and the team's leader, Walter "Robby" Robinson. Keaton did a great job in not only conveying his character's leadership, but also his knowledge that The Globe had learned about the abuses years earlier, but had covered it up. It seemed a shame that he did not receive an Academy or Golden Globe nomination.

As much as I enjoyed "SPOTLIGHT" and was impressed by it, a part of me feels that it should not have won the Best Picture award. I think the Academy had awarded the film its top honor simply based upon its topic. The problem for me is that "SPOTLIGHT" simply lacked any real artistry. One might accuse me of being shallow. Perhaps I am. But I would prefer to choose a movie that not only provided a great topic, but also first-rate writing . . . and artistry. I can think of two other films that were also nominated the same year as "SPOTLIGHT" that provided all of those features. Someone once pointed out that if you take away the movie's topic of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, "SPOTLIGHT" would come off as a solid, paint-by-the numbers film by a first-time director. And you know what? That person was right. There were times when McCarthy's direction for "SPOTLIGHT" seemed a bit amateurish.

Even though I feel that "SPOTLIGHT" should not have won the Best Picture Oscar for 2015, I cannot deny that it is a basically an first-rate film. I believe that this is due to its fascinating subject, the film's approach to the topic as a mystery and the excellent cast led by Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo and Rachel McAdams.

"SPOTLIGHT" (2015) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the 2015 Best Picture Oscar winner, "SPOTLIGHT". Directed and co-written by Thomas McCarthy, the movie starred Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams and Liev Schreiber: 



"SPOTLIGHT" (2015) Photo Gallery

Peggy Carter's Post-World War II Career

PEGGY CARTER’S POST-WORLD WAR II CAREER

Recently, I did a re-watch of Season One of "AGENT CARTER". While watching Scientific Strategic Reserve (SSR) Agent Peggy Carter endure the patronizing slights from her boss and fellow agents, I found myself wondering how she ended up as a mere agent, reduced to acting as the office’s secretary/coffee girl after two years as a code breaker at Bletchley Park and four years in the SSR during World War II. 

I am certain that many of you would answer . . . duh, sexism! Like many women after World War II, Peggy had found her wartime activities dismissed by men, who were more concerned with regulating her and other women to traditional roles. This became doubly so for the likes of her post-war supervisors - Captain John Flynn and Chief Roger Dooley; and the latter's Lead Investigator/Agent, Jack Thompson. It was easier for them to treat Peggy as someone who should have held a secretarial or clerical position at the SSR, instead of an agent.

This was the conclusion I had come to after viewing both the 2013 short film, "MARVEL ONE-SHOT: AGENT CARTER"and Season One of the 2015-2016 series for the first time. It took a recent viewing of Season One for me to harbor some doubts about this story arc for Peggy. Between the creation of the SSR in 1940 and its absorption into the Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division (S.H.I.E.L.D.) as one of the latter’s subdivision near the end of the 1940s; Colonel Chester Phillips served as Director. If Colonel Phillips had served as Director of the SSR during the 2013 short film, along with Seasons One and Two of "AGENT CARTER", how did Peggy end up being reduced as some lowly field agent whom most of her colleagues dismissed, due to her gender? How did she get into this situation?

While working as a MI-5 agent in 1940, Peggy was loaned out to the SSR. Later that year, she managed to infiltrate HYDRA’s German headquarters at Castle Kaufmann and rescue Dr. Abraham Erskine, creator of the Super Soldier Serum. She also engaged in missions in Brooklyn, New York and the Soviet Union. In June 1943, she was assigned by Phillips to train the potential candidates - one of them, a physically undeveloped Steve Rogers - for Erskine’s serum. By the end of the war, she had more or less become Phillips’ top aide. And following the death (or disappearance) of Steve Rogers, who had been transformed into Captain America by Erskine's serum, she took command of the Howling Commandos and led the operation to mop up the last remnants of HYDRA in Europe. They managed to capture one of the last HYDRA commanders, General Werner Reinhardt, and an artifact in his possession called the obelisk. Within a year of this operation, Peggy found herself first assigned to the SSR's Brooklyn, New York office under Captain John Flynn; and later assigned to the SSR's Manhattan office, which was supervised by Roger Dooley.

So, how did Peggy get into this situation? How did she become the butt of contempt, bigotry and many jokes by her fellow agents? Dismissed as a woman who had no business in what they regarded as a "man's world"? Both Flynn and Dooley must have seen her personnel file and learned about her exemplary wartime activities. Yet, both continued to dismiss her . . . until she managed to discover a deadly liquid called "the Zodiac", while working at the SSR's Brooklyn office. Later, she managed to decrypt an encoded message for the Manhattan office, which was received from a Soviet intelligence group called the Leviathan through its agent, Sascha Demidov's typewriter. Roger Dooley's regard for Peggy increased following Thompson's glowing report of her actions during a mission in the Soviet Union. By the end of Season One's penultimate episode, Dooley, Thompson and the rest of the agents had learned to accept Peggy for the competent intelligence agent that she was. 

After a good deal of thinking, it finally occurred to me what problems I had with this scenario regarding Season One of "AGENT CARTER". One of them happened to be Colonel Chester Phillips, Director of the SSR. The other problems proved to be the series' creators, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely; and Eric Pearson, who wrote the 2013 one-shot film. According to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) Wiki website, Colonel Phillips was the sole director of the SSR throughout the 1940s. If so, why did he assign Peggy to serve under a pair of sexists like John Flynn and Roger Dooley? Peggy was one of Phillips' best operatives during the war and his top aide. Hell, she was by his side when he and Steve Rogers led the assault on the last base of operations commanded by HYDRA leader Johann Schmidt during the last year of World War II. It made no sense to me that Phillips would assign Peggy to serve under men who obviously had no true professional regard for her. I found this especially hard to believe, considering that by the end of the decade, Phillips had no problems regarding Peggy as a co-founder of S.H.I.E.L.D. And her service under Flynn and Dooley seemed like a step down from her activities during the war. 

When Eric Pearson wrote the one-shot film, did he not consider that Chester Phillips had continued to serve as the SSR's director after the war? Did Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, when they created "AGENT CARTER"? Could any of them consider a different scenario that did not call for Peggy serve the SSR in such a lowly fashion following the war? Peggy could have ended up leading her own field unit . . . and still face the sexism of her colleagues.

But this never happened. And knowing that Chester Phillips continued to serve as Director of the SSR throughout the 1940s, I found the troubles - especially the kind of sexism that Peggy Carter had faced as an agent working in New York City during the immediate post-war years somewhat difficult to swallow. I would have found Peggy facing sexism, while serving in a slightly higher position within the SSR's hierarchy easier to believe. Or . . . I would have found Peggy's experiences in New York City easier to swallow if Chester Phillips had been replaced as the SSR's Director following the end of World War II.

"THE PUBLIC EYE" (1992) Review

"THE PUBLIC EYE" (1992) Review

Over twenty years ago, I came across a small period drama, while perusing my local video rental store. I never had any intention of watching this movie. In fact, I had never heard of it before . . . despite being a fan of the two leading stars. 

I read somewhere that "THE PUBLIC EYE" was inspired by the career of New York Daily News photographer Arthur "Weegee" Fellig. In fact, some of the photographs featured in the film had been taken by Fellig, himself. But the movie is not a biopic. Instead, "THE PUBLIC EYE" told the story of one Leon "Bernzy" Bernstein, a freelance crime and street photographer for the New York City tabloids, whose work is known for its realistic depiction of the city and all of its citizens. Due to his realistic photography and willingness to resort to any means to snap graphic shots of crime scenes, he is known as "the Great Berzini". 

Sometime during 1942, America's first year into World War II, Bernzy is summoned by a widowed Manhattan nightclub owner named Kay Levitz. One of local New York mobs is trying to muscle in on her business. Kay asks Bernzy to investigate an individual she considers troublesome. Generally unsuccessful with women, Bernzy agrees to help Kay, as he slowly begins to fall in love with her. Bernzy talks to a few of his contacts, including journalist Arthur Nabler, and tracks down Kay's troublesome man. Only the latter had been murdered. Bernzy's activities attract the attention of the New York police, the F.B.I. and two rival mob leaders. Through a connection to a local gangster named Sal, Bernzy discovers that Kay's husband had got involved with a mob turf war over illegal gas rationing and the Federal government.

"THE PUBLIC EYE" did not make much of an impact on the U.S. movie box office, when it hit the theaters during the fall of 1992. In fact, I do not believe that the studio that released it - Universal Studios - made any effort to publicize it. Worse, the movie eventually garnered mixed reviews. However, I had no idea of all of this until I saw the movie, years later. My first reaction to this lack of attention by Universal and the mixed reviews was surprised. My second reaction was . . . disappointment. Well, I was not that disappointed with the movie's mixed reviews. After all, I believe in the old adage "to each his own". But even to this day, I feel slightly disappointed that Universal Studios did very little to publicize this movie. Why? I thought "THE PUBLIC EYE" was a lot better than many assumed it to be - including the studio suits.

Was there anything about "THE PUBLIC EYE" that I disliked? Or found hard to swallow? To be honest . . . no. Let me correct myself - very little. After all, the movie was perfect. A part of me wishes it could have been a little longer than its 99 minute running time. And if I must be honest again, the mystery surrounding the death of Kay Levitz's tormentor did not last very long. Not much time had passed before the story had revealed the gas rationing scandal behind the tormentor's murder . . . or the identity of the movie's main antagonist. Personally, I saw no reason why screenwriter-director Howard Franklin tried to present this plot as some kind of mystery.

And yet . . . I really enjoyed "THE PUBLIC EYE". In fact, it is a personal favorite of mine. There seemed to be so much that I found enjoyable in this movie. Although Franklin's plot did not prove to be much of a mystery, I must admit that I enjoyed how the corruption tale provided a strong link to civilian life during America's early period in World War II. The plot also seemed to provide a strong historical background of life during this time in New York City's history. I enjoyed how Franklin's screenplay made such strong connections between the city's major criminals, the Federal government and the goods rationing that dominated the lives of American citizens during the war. But what I really enjoyed about this movie is its final action sequence that featured a gangland mass murder inside a local Italian restaurant photographed by the main protagonist. Franklin did a superb job in capturing this sequence on film that it still gives me goosebumps whenever I watch it.

Some film critic - I forgot his name - once complained that the "noir" atmosphere for "THE PUBLIC EYE" seemed superficial and not particularly engaging. Personally, I loved the movie's atmosphere. Not because I believe that it permeated with a sense of a "noir" film. I loved it because I thought it permeated with a sense of what life was for the many citizens of New York City during those early years of the war. The movie portrayed how different social groups based on class and ethnic differences are forced to live together in one metropolis during a difficult time in American history. Bernzy's own background as a Jewish immigrant from Russia and his profession were used against him on several occasions. This especially seemed to be the case with the elitist book publisher who seemed disturbed by the former's name and the realistic images he took; and Danny, the Irish-born doorman and snob who not only worked at Kay's nightclub, but also regarded Bernzy as beneath him. Even Kay's own background as a showgirl led people to regard her as some gold digger who had achieved some social status via marriage to a nightclub owner. This explained how two such diverse people managed to click on an emotional level throughout most of the movie.

Visually, "THE PUBLIC EYE" seemed like a treat. Watching it made me feel as if I had landed right in the middle of Manhattan, circa 1942, thanks to art directors Bo Johnson and Dina Lipton, set decorator Jan K. Bergstrom, and costume designer Jane Robinson, who had created some very interesting costumes for Barbara Hershey. I was especially impressed by the work of production designer, Marcia Hinds, who I believe more than anyone, contributed to the movie's early 1940s setting and atmosphere.

I had checked Howard Franklin's filmography and discovered that he had only directed three movies so far. Considering the first-rate performances featured in this film, it seemed a miracle that Franklin's lack of real experience did not hamper them. I do not know which role I would consider to be my favorite performed by Joe Pesci. But I do know that Leon "Bernzy" Bernstein is one of my top three favorite characters he has ever portrayed. I thought Pesci did a superb job in portraying a character who is not only driven by his ambition for his profession, but also racked with loneliness, due to how others tend to perceive him. Barbara Hershey gave a very subtle and skillfully ambiguous performance as the widowed nightclub owner, Kay Levitz. Hershey's Kay came off as a warm and compassionate woman who understood Bernzy, due to her own struggles over how others perceive her and at the same time, a reluctantly pragmatic woman who is forced, at times, to sacrifice her self-esteem for the sake of survival.

The movie also benefited from a collection of first-rate performance from major supporting cast members. One of those performances came from Jared Harris, who did an excellent job in conveying the snobbish aspect of his character, the Irish-born Danny, who worked at Kay's nightclub as a doorman. Stanley Tucci gave a terrific and subtle performance as a low-level mobster named Sal, who provides the final link to Bernzy's investigation into the gas ration scandal. Jerry Adler, whom I recall from the CBS series, "THE GOOD WIFE", gave an emotional and complex performance as one of Bernzy's few friends, a journalist named Arthur Nabler. Both Dominic Chianese and Richard Foronjy were excellent as the two mob warring bosses, Spoleto and Frank Farinelli. The movie also featured solid performances from the likes of Richard Riehle, Bob Gunton, Tim Gamble, Patricia Healy and Del Close.

I realize that many critics do not have a high opinion of "THE PUBLIC EYE". Why? Well, I never did bother to learn the reason behind their attitude. Perhaps I never really bothered is because I enjoyed the movie so much. In fact, I fell in love with it when I first saw it. And my feelings for "THE PUBLIC EYE" has not changed over the years, thanks to Howard Franklin's direction and script, along with a first-rate cast led by Joe Pesci and Barbara Hershey.

"THE PUBLIC EYE" (1992) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the 1992 neo-noir film, "THE PUBLIC EYE". Loosely based upon New York photographer Arthur "Weegee" Fellig and directed by Howard Franklin, the movie starred Joe Pesci and Barbara Hershey: 


"THE PUBLIC EYE" (1992) Photo Gallery