The Mansfield Menagerie

It is very challenging for the fan of the novel Mansfield Park to dip a toe into the world of its adaptations. They are uniformly unsatisfying. Austen's work generally lends itself so well to portrayal on screen, it is hard to say why exactly Mansfield Park has had such a rocky road to the screen. I know that it is not one of Austen's best loved works. It is her longest and features an interesting assemblage of characters in which our hero/heroine stand for a moral line. The themes of class stratification, understanding one's self, one's talent's, one's "place" may not translate well to a modern audience. But these themes play well for me, and I love the novel. I love its complexity and depth.

Were I to simply rank and pick my "favorite" of the three adaptations (a 1983 BBC miniseries, a 1999 theatrical release, and a 2007 TV movie ) there'd be an unquestionable winner, because only one of these adaptations does a proper job of actually adapting the book: the 1983 miniseries. The other two are seized with misguided attempts to spice up the story - make Fanny Price exciting, to make Sir Thomas evil, to focus on irrelevant details (the slave trade), or push the sexuality over the top.

In quick recap of how all the watching came about: I wanted a lengthy miniseries fill my evenings and reached for the 1983 Mansfield Park which I own on dvd. I knew what I was going to get because I've seen it many times before and I enjoyed it, but for some reason, on this viewing, I was distracted by the grating affectations many of the actors employ. I also noted with displeasure that the Edmund / Fanny story wrapped up really awkwardly. These dissatisfactions led me to reach out for more.

Because it had been many years since I'd watched the other productions, I could no longer remember details and was flying blind. So I rented the 1999 version online. I figured, well, it had Jonny Lee Miller. This would be a good place to start. I couldn't have been more wrong. It didn't take long to remember that this was the light-porn adaptation. There is a sex scene with nudity; there is a lesbian hint between Fanny and Mary Crawford; there are shocking drawings shown of slaves beating raped, beaten, hung. Um....seriously. They are adapting... ?Austen? Do they know what she writes about? Oddly, the 1999 production also chose to morph Fanny Price into more of a "Jane Austen" character, changing the feel of the story significantly. I thought I'd hit rock bottom with one of the worst Austen adaptations there is.

So I was glad I'd only rented, not bought, and went over to eBay and and bought the 2007 version on dvd thinking it'd be nice to have another MP in my collection. Oh my word! This version is hardly an adaptation of anything. It is so pared down as to be unrecognizable. The sexuality is rampant and brazen; Fanny is insipid; plot details are bastardized. Its a mess! I think it is actually a worse adaptation than the 1999 version (and that is truly saying something), if only because it has hacked away at the novel so severely. If 1999 is bad because of its interpretations being unacceptable, 2007 is bad because it is a sprint.., on the wrong course.

Nevertheless! interesting things have happened in the past when I have taken the time to dig into the portrayals one at a time and compare them. So, just as I have done previously with both the adaptations of Emma and of Persuasion, I will go role by role into the Mansfield Parks, grading each production on the performances/characterizations of the main roles, assigning "casting points" to them. At the end I calculate a CPA (casting points average) and choose a winner.

Here we go!


Fanny
As mentioned above, I found all of the Fannys unsuitable. Austen has crafted heroines with a range of personality types: the lively and intelligent, the sensitive and romantic, the girlish and misguided, the reserved and proper. Why is Fanny's moral everywoman so hard to hit the right note on?

I have often heard Fanny accused of being boring. Sure, she might not be sparkly, but her character still packs a wallop. Austen describes Fanny through the voice of Henry Crawford as he tells his sister that he wants to marry her. According to Henry, Fanny has grace and goodness, is gentle, modest, and sweet. She shows patient forbearance and has strong affections. She has a warm, gentle heart and an understanding beyond question. He describes her elegant mind, her good principles, her steadiness and regular conduct and integrity. To this, Henry's sister Mary replies that this praise is "scarcely beyond her merits." In other words, yep. Fanny is all that. She is also young, pretty, relaxed and content. in the full bloom of youth, as Austen would say.

I picture her character as somewhere between Anne Eliot and Elinor Dashwood in terms of her clarity about what is right. Since she comes from poverty, she doesn't have their same decorum or self-confidence. She doesn't always know how to act in company; but her motives and actions always come from the right place. She may be girlish in the line of Catherine Moreland, but with a naturally strong central core. It's extraordinary that she has all these qualities, given her neglect and removal from her family as a child. In fact, as I think of it, she's somewhat of a Harry Potter character: completely good, very aware of what is right, and willing to stand up for that at every turn. She is remarkable for what she manages to be, despite everything in her background.

None of these characterizations do her justice.


1983 - Sylvestra Le Touzel conveys some qualities of Fanny Price. She evokes the diligent niece, the compliant cousin, the kind friend to the disenchanted (see, e.g., her treatment of poor Rushworth); she is the moral line in the sand. But isn't relaxed, warm and natural enough. Sylvestra has an interesting look. She is actually somewhat beautiful at times, but doesn't suggest Fanny's striking attractiveness that many other characters in the book are struck with. The portrayal is a bit too frumpy. She has an odd, exaggerated, affected acting style with stilted mannerisms and a flat, decided, cadence. She seems almost apoplectic at other times. She is memorable but she doesn't capture Austen's heroine. B

1999 - Frances O'Connor is far too sparkly. She plays an interesting character, but that character isn't Fanny Price. It is some blend of Jane Austen herself and a new heroine written to confuse us. O'Connor is an appealing lead actress. She might make a great Austen heroine.  Just not this one. Although this might not be through O'Connor's design or fault, this characterization of Fanny is far too outgoing, charming, intellectual, literary, and outspoken. Fanny doesn't need to be glossed up to be interesting. She would be interesting just as she is, if somebody would care to try doing that. B


2007 - Billie Piper is a lovely actress, but her Fanny Price is too far afield from anything Austen intended. She pouts; she's uncouth and open-mouthed. She stands around staring in a childish way. Interestingly, this worked well for the younger actress who played Fanny as a child, but doesn't translate to what grown up Fanny should be. This Miss Price speaks without decorum or reserve; she is a tomboy, running around disheveled and demanding a dance outside when Sir Thomas proposes a ball. Seriously? Not. Fanny. B-



Edmund

2007 - Blake Ritson
Warm, kind and introspective, Ritson strikes a good brotherly tone with Fanny. He comes across as both dignified and honorable with an appropriate affect and tone of voice. He is relaxed much of the time, but more importantly, appears to be in control, almost always. He uses anger well when anger is need. Unfortunately, at the end when he becomes rather giddy in love with Fanny it feels rather strained and out of character for our Edmund. A

1983 - Nicholas Farrell
He hits a good blend of morality and charm. Though probably not quite enough charm. He is a good moral center and does a nice job of making us see Mary's faults; we don't get a lot of chemistry with Fanny, but we do get a tiny nice scene which feels like almost flirting with Fanny (in the carriage on the way to dinner). He is not as personally appealing as the other two and has some notable mannerisms that feel awkward, but generally, he personifies Edmund. This 1983 production wraps up abruptly with Fanny and Edmund getting together with no change in manner or shift in their relationship. (The opposite problem of the 2007 version.) I can't put this all on Farrell, but he can bear his share. B+


1999 - Johnny Lee Miller
He is a very handsome man and has the potential for great charm. They just aren't on full display here, where he's fairly forgettable. He seems earnest enough and a bit confused much of the time. In fact, he seems buffeted about without real endeavor and that is the opposite of what Edmund should stand for. He should be direct, sure of himself, honorable to a fault, and appealing enough personally to have 2 ladies fall in love with him. He succeeds well enough on that last one, but feels too changeable and weak to be a good Edmund. I don't like seeing JLM down here a the bottom of any list, but he just doesn't stand out as much as the other two. If you want to see him shine, go over to Emma where his is the definitive Mr. Knightly. But as Edmund: B



Mary Crawford

Mary Crawford is one of Austen's most interesting women. She is so appealing, attractive and intelligent, but ultimately stands for base amorality and ends the book in disgrace, shut out from the man she has come to love and the family and home to which she's become attached. She is often compared to Elizabeth Bennett for her sparking wit, but I think that's too simplistic. I do see Elizabeth's wit, intelligence and playfulness in Mary Crawford, but I also see the overt interest in social climbing, the ambition and inappropriate character of say Mrs, Elton. And, unlike either of these women, Crawford also possesses the well-bred surface elegance and manners of someone like Miss Bingley. This must be a juicy role and the actresses who portray her in these productions do a pretty nice job with it.

1999 - Embeth Davidtz
She hits all the markers. She is quite elegant. Quite beautiful. And maybe just a touch too regal. She looks a bit like Jackie Smith-Wood who handled the role in 1983, and acts a good deal like her too -- but without the awkward edges. You get the feel for the slightly conniving, self-interested lens through which she views the world, while able to sell herself seamlessly at Mansfield Park. The production in which she acts is way too raw and places Mary in a bit of a sex tease scene with Fanny Price. Remarkably, Davidtz' performance manages to overcome that awkward bit and stay refined. A


1983 - Jackie Smith-Wood
Like many others in the 1983 production, she acts with too much consciousness and has an affected style. If she could have been just a bit more natural, she'd be spot on as a Mary Crawford who speaks readily and easily with charm and wit, has the right amount of baseness in her motivations. She and her brother as a team probably have the best chemistry as well, seeming very much like siblings. B+


2007 - Hayley Atwell
This lady looks like Cindy Crawford. She is very pretty. but, her Mary Crawford is too sharp, calculating, and coarser than she should be. Mary should be elegant, lovely, a true lady on the surface. Atwell gives an impression of a cold, strategizing player from the start. We don't have to dig deep to see her flaws; they are on full display. B



Henry Crawford

How are you supposed to pick! All three are reasonably good approximations of Henry, but two are fairly forgettable (Beattie and Nivola) and one (Burbage) has irritating, though memorable, affectations.

I'll give the edge to the memorable one.

1983 - Robert Burbage
He is tightly curled, like his sister, with whom he shares a nice chemistry. He plays Henry well, showing the rakish side in the beginning, developing into an earnest young man who seems to really love Miss Price. He sees her -- her value, her character -- while others are blind and Burbage manages that memorably. Alas, he also acts with an over-the-top awareness. Unfortunately, he enunciates with emphasized diction and gives big meaningful nods to make his points. Could he have only tamed that tendency, he'd have not only been memorable, but truly enjoyable. B+


1999 - Alessandro Nivola is a lovely man no doubt. But his Henry Crawford is the emo version. He feels things deeply and appears quite earnest. But Henry should be a bit more stand-offish, a rake who keeps his true emotions hidden. He fools those around him, then begins to fall, in spite of his better plans and judgements, for Fanny Price. Nivola is too soft, appealing, and available to be a convincing Henry. B


2007 - Joseph Beattie
He plays a shaggy Crawford, less kempt than one might like to see. And he, like his sister, feels too modern, too relaxed, too self-aware. They both appear to be going in to Mansfield Park full of specific bad intent, rather than having their rakish and conniving tendencies slowly unfold as their undoing. It's an important distinction. Henry fails to excel here not really because of Beattie's performance so much as the production choices of the version he is in. He ends up being more detritus on the floor of this poor adaptation. B





Sir Thomas

1983 - Bernard Hepton is the clear best. In fact he is the only one who I can stand watching. Where did these other productions get such a creepy take on Sir Thomas? I don't claim Hepton's Sir Thomas to be a marshmallow. He is a stern alpha male, clearly an authority figure with a great deal of austerity about him. He frightens Fanny and his daughters aren't attached to him. But this Sir Thomas is also caring toward his wife, forgiving of his sister-in-law, kind to fanny, (and even to Maria), he respects Edmund and shows reasonable frustration with Tom. He is a highlight of the production. A

2007 - Douglas Hodge
I think the 2007 must have been heavily influenced by the 1999 movie's take on the sexuality and on the foulness of Sir Thomas. Hodge's Sir Thomas is not as creepy as Pinter's, but is still unsettling. There are overtones of inappropriateness in his interactions with his niece. He is just not an appropriate Sir Thomas. C+

1999 - Harold Pinter
Violent, scary, and god only knows what that guy is up to in Antigua. Alongside Fanny, Sir Thomas has to be one of the most generally misinterpreted characters in this book. I get that he may be hard to understand and appreciate, but the creative team behind this 1999 production reached well outside a reasonable interpretion of Austen's work to get this dark and disturbing take on the patriarch of the clan. C-



Mrs Norris

1983 - Anna Massey
According to IMDB, Massey was born in 1937, making her just 46 or so during this production. I would have argued that she was too old for Mrs. Norris, but in point of fact, the actress is probably a perfect age for the role. That she is played so stooped over may be why she seems older. I don't know if this is Massy's own posture? or an acting choice? In any case, other than my perception that she it a bit too old-seeming for the role, I think Massey's Norris is the gold standard. Very memorable. Irritable and oh so petty, she gives the right flavor of a controlling woman trying to keep life going in the direction it is "supposed" to. A-



2007 - Maggie O'Neill is also about 45 years old at the time of her performance here and she seems it. (As a good thing). She, and her sister Lady Bertram, in fact, both feel like a nice breath of fresh air. They have the right kind of energy. O'Neill seems a little more like a tough CEO than a frumpy aunt, but I like her acting choices. She does well with this role. It's just that I can see Massey in my head now when I read the book, not O'Neill. B+


1999 - Sheila Gish was about 57 years old at the time of this role. This is not the sole reason I have her in last place. I just felt I should mention her age, since I spoke about it for the others. In any case, I would claim that 57 is a bit too old for Mrs. Norris. Still, a larger problem here is that Gish's turn as Norris isn't very memorable. I have vague impressions of more anger and cruelty than is strictly appropriate to the role. I'll give her a B.




Lady Bertram

1983 - Angela Pleasance
I seriously LOVE this languid, half-asleep take on Lady Bertram. The problem is it is just soooo overdone. Had Pleasance scaled back her approach, and spoken with a bit more clarity and coherence sometimes, she'd have been amazing. Had she not taken a great idea so over the top, she could have gotten my highest mark. As it is, I'll keep her in first place for the acting choices, her obsession with her pug, her quiet girl-like voice, but just ding her a bit for not knowing when to stop. A-



2007 - Jemma Redgrave is great. I really like her take on Lady Bertram. The problem is that this production has made her too purposeful, too aware. She is the one who engineers the over-the-top happy ending for Fanny and Edmund and -- although that can hardly be the actress' fault -- I can't like that choice of characterization. Had Jemma Redgrave had the good fortune to act in a MP with the ethos of the 1983 production, I'm sure she'd have knocked this out of the park. As it is, I'll give the portrayal of Lady Bertram in 2007 a B+

1999 - Lindsay Duncan (and the crazy production she is in) has taken Lady Bertram from languid, relaxed, and cozily content to sloppy alcoholic. She is not ladylike. She is not sanguine. I feel bad giving the excellent actress Lindsay Duncan grief over this, as I'm sure she was directed and compelled toward this characterization by the production ethos driving this film But, I have to call it as I see it. The choices that went in to this portrayal of Lady Bertram are not good ones.  B-




Thomas Bertram (eldest son)

1983 - Christopher Villiers
The 1983 production, I have mentioned time and again, has numerous actors that go overboard with self-aware caricatures of their roles. One of the few in the production who emotes normally with no identifiably irritating "shtick" is Christopher Villiers as Tom. He gets one of the funniest lines in the miniseries and delivers it perfectly. When he and Edmund are arguing about the play and Tom suggests that it will be a distraction for his mother's nerves in light of Sir Thomas' absence, they look over to her just as she gives a snort and has clearly been sleeping. Tom smirks: "well, I was unlucky there!" He is not a major presence, but is so refreshing when he is on screen for his easy, natural, unaffected, manner. A


The other Toms are both forgettable. They look a bit alike as well, with these long pointy sideburns. So much so, that... this is embarrassing... I'm not entirely sure I have correct pictures here. I can at least remember D'Arcy, so I'll rank him next with a B.


Gosh this is unfair... even for me.

2007 - James D'Arcy
 - fairly forgettable B

1999 - James Purefoy. Entirely forgettable B-
But that's the way it's going to be.








Maria Bertram


1983 - Samantha Bond
Bond really manages Maria Bertram well. She has a refined attitude with enough of a twinkle to suggest that beneath the exterior, she is ... slightly wicked. She is cool. She is aware. She oozes a great mix of self-confidence and jealousy and a touch of naughtiness. And she does this with relish. Nice portrayal. A



1999 - Victoria Hamilton
This is a brave actress to go en flagrante like this in an Austen adaptation. Her characterization of Maria is done pretty well, with a lot of heart. Despite the non-Regency handling of her attraction to Crawford, Hamilton infuses her Maria with a healthy dose of humanity. She has a yearning in her eyes. You can sense her lacking... and her longing ... and her sad (self-selected) fate of a life with a man she doesn't respect or love. You can find her foolish. You can hate her, but you understand her a bit better due to this nice performance. A-


2007 - Michelle Ryan
This is a way over the top sexed-up take on Maria. She stares brazenly at Crawford and makes love to the camera. But in doing so, she gives a one-note performance. She is meant to be sexy as hell. She is sexy-as-hell. This is it. Maria is more. Whether we blame Ryan or (again) the creative forces behind the characterization, we come away with a performance that adds nothing to our understanding of Austen's character, though plenty of appreciation for her lovely face. B-




Julia Bertram


Julia is a fairly minor role and, in truth, I probably could have kept it out of this post. At one point I thought about ranking the sisters (Maria and Julia) as a set, but then I realized that I had different winners for each sister. So to be fair, I needed to split them up and grade them separately.

1999 - Justine Waddell
There is something about Justine Waddell that needed to be rewarded. She is lovely, pleasant to look at; rather quiet, quite pretty, but somewhat benign. You see a sense of longing in her, and also a clear feeling that she is used to be in the background. Waddell has the right look for Julia and I think captures a really good younger sister vibe. Its not a big part, but the performance feels totally solid anyway. A


1983 - Liz Crowthers
I find her a bit too snivelly for my taste. She is jealous more than confident. Pouty rather than lovely. She recedes into the background, though she appears in the adaptation that almost certainly gives Julia the most screen time. Crowthers is competent, just a bit of a disappointment B+


2007 -  Catherine Steadman
I remember both the sisters in this productions primping, pouting, making goo goo eyes and sexing it up at least in the beginning. After that, I don't recall much of Julia's presence. Of course, part of Julia's role is to be a bit of background noise, but I'm not sure this portrayal of Julia contributes anything to our understanding, as Waddell's does. Steadman gets a B




Mr Rushworth

Rushworth strikes me as a pretty important character in this novel. He exists in a world where morality is the key variable. Fanny and Edmund standing for what is upright and moral, while others, particularly Maria, Mary and Henry push against what is right. There are splits between upright/proper traditional characters (Sir Thomas) and a more-relaxed style of living in the world (Fanny's mother and father, for instance.) A character like Rushworth is important because he falls outside of both of these dimension - neither as a paragon of morality or amorality, and not as a exemplar of what it means to hold up traditional values or those of fashionable society. He has a foot in a few different camps: he represents society, wealth, high-end living and also represents the insipidity of such factors being the standard upon which success is measured. Rushworth is great as comic relief and as a means by which almost every one gets to feel better about themselves.

1999 - Hugh Bonneville manages to convey the complexity of all this background with his posture and face alone. He looks like a man who has grown up expecting a certain respect; he holds himself with great decorum, yet, his face looks confused and a little silly. He looks like he doesn't quite know what he is doing or why he is there. This is perfect. I wish the character had more screen time in this version, but Bonneville makes his little bit count. A

1983 - Jonathan Stephens is also very strong. He brings many of these same characteristics to the role, but brings a little something extra too: a slightly annoying over-the-top self-awareness. This, thankfully, is the last time I'll say it, but the 1983 production has no shortage of actors who over-emote. A little bit less can often be more. So, while Stephens' instincts on how to play this guy are spot-on, he hits us over the head with them. A-


2007 - Rory Kinear
Rushworth is a character these adaptations seem to have gotten the measure of pretty well. Kinear is good in this role; good enough an actor to make you long for more of his character. Unfortunately, you long in vain in this production, in which we are lucky to meet Rushworth at all. The way they sliced and diced through many of the less prominent roles, that is by no means a given. Kinear is appealing - dignified and a little silly. We just don't get nearly enough of him. A-





Whew! That's a lot of roles! Thats a lot of grades to assign! Let's get on with the calculation.

Here are the point values for each grade:

                 2007      1999      1983
A   = 4.0     1            3           3
A-  = 3.7    1            1            3
B+ = 3.3    2                          4
B  =  3.0    4            4            1
B- =  2.7    2            2
C+ = 2.3    1
C  =  2.0
C- = 1.7                  1

               34           34.8        39.3     casting points total
             3.09         3.16        3.57      casting points average

The winner overall, and I guess there's no surprise here, is 1983 with a very strong CPA of 3.57! Congratulations! 2007 and 1999 lag far behind but are so close to each other, and both manage solid B performances overall! 1999 just edges out 2007 for second place, with 3.16 CPA compared to 3.09.


Lots of things to note!

• each of the productions has at least one character who 'wins' the role. 2007 has the fewest wins with 1 -- just for Edmund. 1999 wins on 3 roles (Mary, Julia, and Mr. Rushworth) while 1983 wins the rest, 7 roles.
• the only role that scored in the "C" range was Sir Thomas! With two performances (1999 and 2007) earning C range marks
• 1983, though it does come away the winner here, it is not so much on its own shinning strengths as much as the others weaknesses. 1983 has more "B+" grades than either A's or A-'s and its the lowest scoring role was the "B" Fanny herself earned
• the best-acted role across all three productions was Mr. Rushwoth. All three adaptations turned in an "A"-range Rushworth
• 1999 has an interesting split. There are really good turns from Mary Crawford, Maria and Julia Bertram and Mr Rushworth in this version. It has as many A's (3) as the winning production (1983) does. But almost every other role in the 1999 version is in the B range, with the notable exception of Sir Thomas who is the worst characterization in the whole set
• the most often awarded score was a solid "B." I gave out 9! B's. Compare this to 7 A's, 5 A-'s, 6 B+'s, 4 B-'s and, as mentioned above, 2 scores in the C range (a C+ and a C-)

Life on Mars : that lived reality where we aim for what we had and fight against what we have

Life on Mars is an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, wrapped in mystery.

                   And this a review with spoilers. Please beware.


Having just finished watching this show - and only having seen it once (so far) - there is a lot I don't understand about what "really" happened in the series.  While I may not have properly processed the meaning in full, there is one thing I know for sure: this is great TV.

I have decided that its main contribution to the world is in giving us -- in profoundly transporting fashion -- a lesson on the importance of living the life that is in front of us as opposed to longing for what we think we're supposed to have. This is a universal human struggle. When things change, we spend our time wishing for what we had, ...trying to create what we had, trying to get back to it, instead of making the best of what we have.  This is true when someone dies, or breaks up with us; when one of our children grows up and moves away... and especially when we are hit by a car and wake up in 1973.

That the makers of Life on Mars are genius with selling this message is evidenced by my own reactions to the show - in the beginning and by the end. I'll explain in a minute.


First a bit of back story.

I knew this series existed. For years it was on my "to watch" list. But I got swept up in other things and never got around to looking for it back during a time when it actually might have been more available to me. By the time I sought it out to watch, I couldn't find it anywhere. I lived with the disappointment for a time and then watched the American version on accident thinking it was the British one. (That's actually kind of a funny story. . . .

You see, I learned that my library "finally" had  this title on dvd and ran to check it out one day. I didn't really know much about the series, so was unconcerned with the cover, brought it home, popped it in the dvd player and started enjoying it. It seemed strange to me that it was set in New York. . . and that none of the actors had English accents . . ., but I got into it quickly and just kind of let it slide. Finally I googled and realized I was watching the American remake! haha. But, it was good and I was already hooked, so I watched that whole series. Another time I may blog about it in comparison to the British one. Truly, they are both very well made).

But, back to the main narrative . . . I mean my main digression. I realized later that the only way I was going to get to see the BBC original series was by just biting the bullet and buying the dvds. I figured that there was almost no chance I'd hate the series and a very good one I'd want to own it, so that's what I did.

I already knew the main characters, the storyline, the clever premise. What I was not expecting was how INSANELY transporting the UK Version of this show was going to be!

Truth is, in the first several episodes I was disturbed by 1973. The clutter of papers on all the desks, the staticky signal on the patchy police radio, the forms and the typing, the small boxy tv, the dusty dark earth tones everywhere. The total isolation and banality of small square spaces with no cell phones or internet to aid in the escape.

But this was hardly the half of it. The open sexism, homophobia, lack of respect for civil rights. I'm not kidding. I felt horrified by this place that our modern hero had landed in. I couldn't wait to watch his progress and hoped along with Sam that he'd get home quickly.

By the way, and I'd don't say this lightly, Life on Mars is one of the most impressive things I've ever watched for providing complete and utter immersion in another time period. While I was in the thick of watching, I had to stop myself many times from starting to describe to friends where I'd been (i.e. like, on vacation). I kept forgetting that I hadn't actually gone anywhere. It only felt like it.

My response to 1973 was powerful, visceral, and very real. It was also very negative. In the beginning I found 1973 as repugnant as Sam Tyler did.

Part of my reaction should be seen as praise for the incredible production values of this show and part for the astonishing acting chops of John Simm. I think that, through his talent, I was able to time travel to this weird distant place and completely immerse myself in it, as a stunned, but sarcastically willing bystander.

Then slowly it happened. Bit by bit. The time frame started to assert its own weird beauty. Though it had initially seemed so depressing to see Sam sitting in a dull empty apartment with pretty much nothing to do, the clock dully ticking the endless minutes by . . . slowly, over many episodes, the lack of phones, computers, communications began to feel normal and the slower pace of life desirable. The more personal, direct connections were refreshing: people talking to each other face to face in a way that has almost ceased to feel possible in this modern "connected" cyberworld.

What's more, I began to gain the ability to look below the surface of the offensive and chaotic police work, and find complex people with understandable motivations who meant well and acted within the constraints of their time. In particular, Gene Hunt, the "Gov." The relationship between Sam and Gene is unforgettable.

There is a great top-dog tension that plays out between these two, with Gene Hunt ostensibly -- and by any traditional, masculine measure -- being the one in charge, but Sam Tyler blowing in like a crazy wizard with so much charisma, naïveté and intelligence, that he simply cannot be ignored. Gene beautifully adapts to this strange presence and the two become one of the best male-bonding pairs I know.

As 1973 normalized for me, the slow pace and the working class/simpler life, seemed to matter so much. By the last few episodes, I absolutely related to this time frame as the real one. The one that felt legitimate and correct. To hell with the shiny, fancy and technological 2000s! Talk about dulling and blurring your sense! 

And, fascinatingly, never once did I suspect that this is what they had in mind for me all along.


Yes, I admit. By the end I was putty in their hands. As the drama began to resolve and it became clear that Sam would/could go back home, I dreaded it horribly. I did not want this for him at all. I tried to feel resigned to where things naturally must lead. ... To do otherwise would be like not wanting Dorothy to wake up in her bed at the end. When that's what has to happen. You can't just stay in Oz!


Or can you?  Well, I said there would be spoilers, so there's no need to be coy.  Of course Sam does get to stay in Oz. 1973 IS our reality. And that horrifying bright, fast, metal world he'd left behind? It is not his truth. Now, I'm not going to attempt to describe what this all means. Because I hardly know myself-- thus my tag line about the enigma wrapped in the riddle and possibly some bacon. But I was never happier than when I saw Sam Tyler running off the roof and rejoining his friends. This is the way great TV should end.

I saw later, on the dvd special features, (and, by the way, clearly, I did not regret my decision to purchase this television show, lol) that in fact, my reaction was the exact desired one the creative team was going for. They wanted people to say "no!" when he actually managed to get back to the present.

We may fight what we have. Sometimes for a long time... maybe, say, 16 episodes, but it is so good when you can accept that what you have right in front of you is really all you need.

Though now, maybe, I'm a bit at odds with my own message ... in that the impact of this show was to make me yearn for exactly what I cannot have: this simpler scaled back life of 1973! I mean, for the music alone!


But before I digress myself into another post, let me just wrap up here.  To say that this series lived up to my expectations and up to the ratings and the hype is an understatement.

Easy Virtue - Surprisingly Bad

I was hanging out on facebook the other night when a friend posted: "need a good period drama? Go watch Easy Virtue! It's on Netflix."

Well, that was certainly enough for me ... I headed over. And I did watch, and I suppose I'm not too disappointed that I did, if for no other reason, then it gives me something to write about, but unfortunately what I have to say is that Easy Virtue is surprisingly bad.

Here is a film that by rights should be perfect for me. It has it all: British actors, great houses and landscapes; period costumes, cars, and furnishings! A great time period at the cusp of the 1930s! Hell, it even has Colin Firth.

How the heck did it still manage to be such a misfire?

What this experience (coupled with the recently painful viewing of Parade's End) has taught me is that good acting -- and other sundry visual delights -- cannot save bad writing. And that story matters above all.



Having just accused this work of bad writing, I was stunned to look it up and learn that the film was based on a Noel Coward play. Obviously enough I have not read that play. I learned also, thank you Wikipedia, that the play was adapted to film before -- in 1928 -- and directed by Alfred Hitchcock. This is getting crazy. I consider myself a silent film aficionado, yet I not only had not heard of the silent film version, but hadn't even realized that Hitchcock had been a director during the silent film era.

Feeling like a bone-head right now.

Maybe you should walk away slowly from this blog :)


OK, I might be uninformed about a lot of things. But I'll tell you what I'm not wrong about: Easy Virtue (2008) is not great. In defense of my opinion I'll also share that the Wikipedia article goes on to state that "hardly any feature of the original play remains [in the 2008 adaptation] besides the main characters, and even they do not greatly resemble Coward's cast." lol.

So maybe the Coward play was itself good. No idea. But this adaption is seriously flawed.


The plot goes something like this: Larita, a beautiful and vivacious American race car driving star meets and falls in love with a classy young British dude while in France at a car racing event. They marry and then return to England to meet his family. The basic plot from this point on is "fish out of water" stuff, with the young sexy American clashing predictably with the boy's mother and sisters, but winning over the male folk such as the butler and the dad, the ever-gorgeous Colin Firth.

The actors are top notch all around. In addition to Firth as dad, we have and Kristin Scott Thomas as mom; we have Kimberley Nixon and Katherine Parkinson (who I love so much in IT Crowd, but who is wasted here) as the sisters. I even recognized Kris Marshall as Furber the butler (who'd made such an amazing addition to Love Actually as Colin Frissel the guy who goes to Wisconsin to meet hot Americans). Was there a requirement that a certain portion of cast members have names beginning with K, I wonder?

The tone of the film is supposed to be light hearted and witty I think. But it just isn't. Music tells us that we are to find some scenes funny... like the burying of a dog who is accidentally squished. We seem to be expected to find the accidental squishing funny too. But these moments aren't funny and the cast can't make them so. Everything is written in a pallid and flat manner and with ambiguous direction.

There is no great chemistry between any of the characters; the closest is the connection that develops between Larita and her new father in law. The relationships between the other characters feel mostly strained and uninteresting - such as between Larita and her husband, the young husband and his sisters, the mom and dad, Larita and the butler; the list goes on. Although the engine driving the plot is the tension between Larita and her mother-in-law, their relationship feel so time-worn I just couldn't get in to it.

In fact, this is what plagues much of the film - a feeling of having seen this all before. Husband coming home to a world he no longer knows after the war...  Average looking girls overlooked in favor of flashy blonde... Girl next door with a heart of gold...  Yappy foo foo overindulged dog.... cliche, cliche and cliche! And that's when you realize that the English countryside can only take you so far. There has to be a point. Some reason to care about these folks and their predicaments.

Jessica Biel as Larita is gorgeous and I actually want to like her. Oddly even, I probably do like her character more than almost anyone else in the film, which is really saying something. Biel manages a  performance that fits this awkward film. But she got the memo that this isn't real English drama, just a knock off to turn some quick cash -- and her flat, charming, American gumption seems to fit that ethos really well.

Kristin Scott Thompson, on the other hand, is striving for something real and meaningful. But has little to work with and, despite her best attempts, the character of the mom (mother-in-law to Larita) ends up melodramatic, or just somehow too disproportionally deep for how stupid this film is. Though she is still such a treat to gaze at - what timeless beauty and class that woman has!

Colin Firth does his best to act the slightly curmudgeonly, wasted, but still debonair, older man. But we never get much sense of his motivations though, or any real backstory that could help flesh him out and let the viewer feel as if we know him. He just flits around the edges of the story seeming equal parts bitter, detached and classy. A too-strange mix. We can't really decide whether to like a guy who has so abdicated any role in his family -- when his family clearly needs some direction (...even though he is smoldering in a washed-up way, which, truly could be -- and often is -- enough.)

The young British actors, such as Ben Barnes as the husband, his sisters, and the butler, all seem to be working in the a middle ground of earnest, uptight, but still fun young brits and at times they almost manage to make the viewer care about them. The problem is we are given little to care about because their motivations are unclear or at least uneven. I don't really know what they want.

All in all, I would say that the film isn't horrid. It does have some amazing eye-candy in the form of gowns and period details that have been lovingly recreated. The cinematography is rich and evocative. If these things are enough for you, watch. I would not recommend it directly, but there are worse ways to spend an evening.

A Tale of Two Sherlocks

No, I'm not comparing the CBS Program Elementary with BBC's Sherlock -- though I probably will someday, as I do like both (though I know you're not supposed to).

I am talking about two Sherlocks that have probably NEVER been spoken of in the same breath by any human being before, but for each of which I've fallen.

It dawned on me recently that it was due to their roles as Sherlock Holmes that I initially became interested in two wildly different actors that I now consider among my all time favorites: Benedict Cumberbatch (as Sherlock) and Buster Keaton (as Sherlock Jr.) There are some odd similarities between these two stars and these two productions that caught my attention when I started reflecting. The oddest by far is that I've never considered myself a particular fan of the Sherlock Holmes character.













Don't worry, I'm not going to claim that these two are look-a-likes. I've taken some grief here on the blog for outlandish claims of look-a-likes in the past, so you know I'm not afraid to go out on a limb if warranted... but really I don't think even I would go there with Cumberbatch and Keaton.  It's not so much that they look "alike", but I will argue for some shared characteristics.

First, and I guess quite obviously, these two actors have extraordinary eyes. Not alike, no. Benedict's are very pale, almond shaped, and almost Asian-lidded. Whereas Buster's are dark, round and very deep set. (And as I wrote that, I realized they have another interesting commonality -- a vagueness as to color. Benedict's eyes apparently change color, so I don't know what color to call them; and Buster was filmed in B&W, so "we" don't really know what color eyes he had.) But for both of them, it was those eyes that got me. Incredible, wide-set, in a pale smooth-skinned face.  After watching Sherlock Jr. (with no intent of thinking about Keaton as any sort of a sex symbol, in fact with no intent of caring about him in the slightest), I found myself the next day continually visualizing that wide space on his forehead - that large, open, wide-eyed look. It stuck with me, and I couldn't wait to rewatch the film just to look at him again.  Benedict's Sherlock grabbed me in much the same way, though it took a bit longer. I realized after watching a couple episodes that whenever I thought about him, my thoughts focused on 'space' -- that wide countenance. Both of them have this quality. And its obviously a quality I like. That openness, I think, lends an air of intelligence and inscrutability with a touch of wonder that mixes well with Sherlock's dispassion.

Another similarity for these two men is a thing that both Keaton and Cumberbatch are renowned for: their cheekbones. And that's a pretty odd parallel to be talking about considering I can't really think of another star I associate with cheekbones.

Their faces are quite different -- Buster's is more square-shaped, Benedict has a long face, but each has a deep chiseled profile that photographs stunningly. The profiles are manly and add greatly to the charm of these actors who are otherwise so smooth, open and white that there might almost be a hint of femininity about the features. Delicate in some ways, deeply rugged in another, these men share an appealing mix of qualities.

Cheekbones and eyes, pale open faces. Check. I guess I could talk about the manes of rich brown shaggy hair these two seem to enjoy, but why even go there, as it is a feature shared by a great many actors. (Though it is certainly pretty to look at). What strikes me in my musings though, goes way beyond these actors' interesting physicality, and deep into the productions themselves.

Consider the following:

I'll start with something that might seem mundane, but I find it really cool. Production length. I have never known a TV show that lasts an hour and a half. That's a weird length. Longer than a typical TV show, shorter than a typical movie for its genre, the creative forces behind Sherlock have chosen a unique timespan to tell their story in. I have often thought about what a brilliant length Sherlock is, and felt proud of the team for being willing to make a strong and unique choice in support of story.


















But then it dawned on me -- and here's what most people reading this wouldn't know -- Keaton's Sherlock Jr. also has an unusual length (relative to 1920s era productions). Longer than a 'short', and short for a 'feature' film, Sherlock Jr runs 45 minutes.  I have often considered the length of that production to weigh heavily in its favor and have recommended it to people by expressly noting that the pace and length are perfect for the story. Again, it was a genius choice to support the story with a pacing that feels crisp and allows the plot to unfold perfectly.

I think it takes a special kind of creative vision to say, "hey, here's what our story requires. We don't care if its an odd length. Make it work."



But there are yet other features that the two productions share.  Each has taken a unusual twist on the Sherlock concept. In the TV series, the events have been set in modern times, while otherwise respecting the characters and plot and just translating them to the current world.

Buster Keaton's Sherlock Jr., made nearly 100 years ago, takes place in a "modern" world as well -- I mean, as opposed to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's.  Sherlock Jr. is only very lightly based on Holmes at all, using the character as a fantasy contrast to the mundane and sometimes painful foibles of our hero's life.

In nether production is there any attempt to go back in time and engage in period drama. Both simply roll some modern day sleuthing into a story of everyday life.  In both these versions, the Sherlock character plays as someone very intellectual, in charge, and a bit distracted. Both have Sherlocks that feel very much a product of their times - rather than any past time. In Buster's version, his Sherlock plays pool, has explosives, engages in Vaudevillian tricks, rides around on a motorcycle and a boat, and cuts a stylish figure in dapper clothing.  Its a very 20's-era piece. And Benedict's Sherlock is very 2010s production - with blogging, and cell phones, modern spying and forensic abilities.


But that's still not all.

Another thing these productions share: humor (blended with tension). Obviously, humor is what Buster Keaton is all about, but still, its pretty cool to see him working the spy genre for laughs. It may be more unique that the TV drama Sherlock is so unexpectedly hilarious.  While Keaton's brand of humor is physical, the humor in the modern TV show is mostly verbal. That both productions are crazy-funny, is another similarity that marks these Sherlocks as unusual.



Finally, and maybe the coolest connecting thread may be that each of these two productions represent cutting-edge work for their use of clever photographic approaches to tell the story.

In Sherlock (the TV show), the production team uses very creative camerawork, special effects and editing, not just to impress us, but to directly move the story. A great Youtube video address this (How to Film Thought). The makers of this video are far more intelligent than I, but I am smart enough to know that what the Sherlock team manages all the time with extraordinary clever camerawork is part of what makes this series so very special. I highly recommend you clicking on the video here. Another trick that is used effectively throughout the TV series is thought-bubble-words to show what Sherlock is thinking when he is examining a crime scene or explaining his deductions. Rather than having to explain every last thing through dialog, the camera is used with great creative vision and a certain elegance that is integrated seamlessly into the artistic vision of the larger story.


But again, guess what? It's something that Buster Keaton did 90 years ago in Sherlock Jr.! A bit of background would probably help. In this film, Keaton plays a young man who works for a movie theater but dreams of being a detective. He wants to propose to his girlfriend, but his rival gets there first and mucks things up for Keaton, stealing her dad's watch and then planting evidence to make it look like Buster did it. Buster attempts to ply his detective skills and catch the guy, but fails, so he goes back to the movie theater, puts on a movie and falls asleep. What happen next is extraordinary: Keaton falls asleep and them dreams himself into the movie, where he materializes as the great detective brought in to solve a very similar crime of the stolen pearls. The scenes where his ghostlike sleepwalking self splinters off and walks into the picture are phenomenal. Even by modern standards, they are evocative and clever. Next, a montage of camera cuts where the background keeps changing while Keaton tries to find a place, are integral to showing us he doesn't really belong in that movie; he's an outsider living a fantasy. This movie within a movie allows us to explore themes of fantasy and the role of cinema magic that was taking such an important hold of people at this time and which clearly persist to this day. The fantastic camerawork is not just a showcase of technology, it is seamlessly integrated into story in an elegant way.

So there it is! Two Sherlocks, separated by nearly a century, separated by genre, by format, by audience, by intent and yet united by two tremendously compelling leads, and some amazing creative visionaries, willing to make bold and non-traditional choices for their creations. Though maybe not typically thought of in the same breath, both deserve exalted positions in the rankings of entertainment history.

Happy Viewing.