24 posts tagged “mid 20th century”
Within a few months, I managed to become a big fan of the AMC series, ”MAD MEN”. I became a fan so fast this past summer that after watching two episodes of Season Two, I purchased a copy of the DVD set for Season One. And fell deeper in love. As for Season Two, I thought it was excellent. In fact, I consider it a slight improvement over Season One. But . . . I do have some quibbles about it:
"MAD MEN" Season Two Quibbles
1. Duck Phillips - I had once complained on the "Basket of Kisses" site that by the end of Season 2, Duck Phillips (portrayed by the superb Mark Moses) seemed to resemble a minor villain that Don Draper had to defeat. Someone responded that Matt Weiner never intended to portray Duck Phillips as some kind of villain. After reading two interviews that Weiner had given, I now see that I had been right to accuse him of such a thing in the first place. How disappointing.
2. Don's Approval For Pete - Why did Pete Campbell need Don Draper's approval? What on earth for? Pete is a grown man in his late 20s. His existence at Sterling Cooper should have meant more to him than acquiring the approval of someone as flawed as Don. He did not need Don's approval. He did not need anyone's approval to exist. And the fact that he gave up a promotion to snitch on Duck - all for Don's approval - makes me realize that Pete has not matured one bit.
3. Bobbie Barrett - Matt Weiner's comments about Bobbie Barrett made me realize a few things about the show's fans. Judging from the comments I have read about Bobbie over the past few months, I get this feeling that most fans viewed Bobbie's sexual desires and aggressive personality in the same manner that Joan's fiancé, Greg, had viewed Joan's sexual history. And since these fans certainly could not drag Bobbie to the floor and rape her, they resorted to calling her every bad name in the book and then some.
After 46 years, our society has barely changed. It seems as if even in the early 21st century, we have maintained a whore/Madonna complex about women. Even Weiner labeled Bobbie as ”that woman” in his interviews about Season Two. He also claimed that it had been wrong for Don to sleep with Bobbie. I do not understand this comment. What was Weiner trying to say? That it was it wrong for Don to have sex with Bobbie and not wrong for him to cuckold Betty with women like Rachel Menken, Midge Daniels and Joy?
4. Paul Kinsey and Sheila White - What on earth happened to the storyline featuring Paul Kinsey’s romance with Sheila White? The season’s second episode - (2.02) “Flight 1” - reveals that Paul is involved in a romance with an African-American woman named Sheila White. This revelation causes a rupture in Paul’s friendship with Joan Holloway, when the latter makes racist comments about the romance. Two episodes later, the romance is hinted again when a visiting Sally Draper finds a photo of Sheila on Paul’s desk. In the episode (2.10) “The Inheritance”, Sheila makes another appearance on the show. She and Paul have a fight over his reluctance to join her in Mississippi for a voter’s registration campaign. He eventually joined her after being pushed out of a trip to California by Don Draper. When Paul returned to New York in (2.13) “Mediations in an Emergency”, Paul informed his co-workers that Sheila had dumped him after three days.
All I can say is this - WHAT IN THE HELL HAPPENED? What led Sheila to finally dump Paul? Unfortunately, Weiner never revealed her reason. He simply ended the romance on a vague note. What makes this move even more annoying to me is the fact that many fans did not question the vague manner in which the romance ended. Instead, they crowed that Sheila had dumped Paul because of his pretentiousness.
One aspect of good cinematic storytelling is that one should ”show” what happened and not tell. Weiner ”told” the viewers what happened to Paul and Sheila . . . and he failed to tell the entire story. This makes me wonder if Weiner had decided not to continue exploring Paul’s relationship with Sheila in order to please the fans. If most of them had defended or made excuses over Joan’s racist comments about the pair’s romance, it really is not that hard for me to come up with this possibility.
5. Peggy Olson’s Meteoric Rise - Could someone please explain how a young woman between the ages of 20-22 or 23, managed to rise from a secretarial school graduate/secretary to the senior copywriter for Sterling Cooper in less than two years? I realize that Peggy was a natural talent in the advertising business. Both Freddie Rumsen and Don Draper recognized this. And I had no problem with Don promoting her to junior copywriter in the Season One finale - (1.13) ”TheWheel”. But what on earth made him promote her to senior copywriter around the end of Season Two’s (2.09) “Six Months Leave”?
One, Don was rather peeved that Peggy had failed to inform him about Freddie Rumsen’s drunken “accident”. And two, there were other copywriters at Sterling Cooper who were capable of assuming Freddie’s position as the senior copywriter. Who? Well, there was Paul Kinsey. I realize that Paul’s pretentiousness and romance with Sheila White made him unpopular with many fans. But Season Two also proved in the episode, (2.06) “Maidenform” that he was just as talented as Peggy. He also has more experience than her, which would have made him the perfect candidate to replace Freddie. Personally, I believe that Don had allowed his mentoring of Peggy to get the best of him and promoted her at a time when she did not really deserve it.
* * * *
Aside from the above quibbles, I thought that Season Two of ”MAD MEN” was excellent. I would go as far to say that it was actually an improvement over Season One. I would be very surprised if it ever failed to earn an Emmy nomination for Best Drama, next August.
”FREQUENCY” (2000) Review
Directed by Gregory Hoblit and written by Toby Emmerich, ”FREQUENCY” is an entertaining and intriguing time travel story about a New York City firefighter in 1969, who is able to communicate with his adult son in 1999, via a short wave radio. The movie starred Dennis Quaid, Jim Cavielzel, Elizabeth Mitchell, Andre Braugher, screenwriter Emmerich and Shawn Doyle.
A rare atmospheric phenomenon – the Aurora Borealis - allows a New York City firefighter named Frank Sullivan (Quaid) to communicate with his police detective son, John Sullivan (Cavielzel) 30 years in the future via short-wave radio. John uses this opportunity to warn Frank of his impending death in a warehouse fire, and manages to save the latter’s life. However, what he does not realize is that changing history has triggered a new set of tragic events, including the murder of his mother, Julia Sullivan (Mitchell). Father and son must now work together, 30 years apart, to find the murderer (Doyle) before he strikes so that they can change history - again.
Many have compared the plotlines of ”FREQUENCY” to the 1985 classic, ”BACK TO THE FUTURE”. I never understood why, since many time travel stories have dealt with different generations within a family interacting with each other – including two episodes of the television fantasy, ”CHARMED”. What made ”FREQUENCY” unique . . . at least for me is that neither of the two major characters actually travel through time – whether through the use of magic or a time machine. In fact, not one character does. The two major characters communicate with each other via a short wave radio and the atmospheric phenomenon, the Aurora Borealis. Frank and John Sullivan manage to change time . . . without leaving their respective time period. I have to admit that this was very clever of screenwriter Emmerich.
Another reason why I find the comparisons between ”FREQUENCY” and ”BACK TO THE FUTURE” hard to buy is the fact that ”FREQUENCY” is not only a time travel story, but also a thriller. In another clever plot twist, there is a serial killer loose called "the Nightingale” murdering nurses in 1969. The case is re-opened by John and his partner/mentor, an old friend of his father named Satch DeLeon (Braugher), when an old corpse is discovered. As it turned out, the Nightingale killings had stopped after three victims, following Frank’s death in a warehouse fire. But when John warns his father of his impending death, Frank manages to save his life and that of a teenage girl. And his wife Julia, who is a nurse, is at the hospital to save the life of the killer, a cop named Jack Shephard. An act that leads to her violent death at his hands – and the deaths of six other nurses. Realizing the consequences of their actions, Frank and John race to save Julia’s life and the lives of Shephard’s other victims – and expose the cop as a serial murderer.
I must say that I ended up being very impressed by Emmerich’s script. He wrote an emotional and suspenseful story filled with family drama, fantasy and suspense. He took an original approach to time travel by having the two main characters travel through time via an object – namely a shorthand radio – without actually leaving their respective periods in time. The only misstep in Emmerich’s script occurred near the end in which featured Shepard’s attempt to kill members of the Sullivan family in both 1969 and 1999 – two incidents that cut back and forth within one sequence. I understood the killer’s attempt to commit murder in 1969. After all, he probably wanted to get even with Frank for exposing him as a serial killer, by murdering Julia. That episode ended with Frank blowing away Shephard’s hand with a shotgun before the latter escaped. But he came back to the Sullivan house, thirty years later to kill John. That simply did not make any sense to me . . . and it almost ruined the sequence for me. Not even Gregory Hoblit’s first-class direction or the competent editing of David Rosenbloom could elevate the scene.
When Hoblit took on the job as director of ”FREQUENCY”, he had difficulty in casting the two leads. Sylvester Stallone was originally considered for the role of Frank Sullivan. But Stallone pulled out over a dispute regarding his paycheck. In the end, Dennis Quaid won the role. And he turned out to be the perfect Frank – the boisterous and charming firefighter who loved his family and baseball. He managed to create a strong chemistry with the talented and surprisingly dark-haired Elizabeth Mitchell, who gave a charming performance as his wife, Julia. And despite the fact that both actors came from Texas (although Mitchell was born in Los Angeles), Quaid and Mitchell managed to create a convincing Queens accent. Well . . . almost. Andre Braugher gave solid support as Satch, Frank’s close friend and John’s mentor. He also had a delicious moment on screen when he discovered that Frank had been telling the truth about communicating with John through time. Screenwriter Toby Emmerich gave a funny performance as John’s best friend, Gordo Hersch. I also have to give kudos to Shawn Doyle for portraying a convincingly scary killer without any signs of acting histrionics. And of course, there is James Cavielzel, who did an excellent job of portraying Frank and Julia’s brooding and slightly obsessive adult son, John Sullivan. And although Cavielzel comes from the Pacific Northwest, his Queens accent turned out to be slightly better than Quaid and Mitchell’s. Hoblit managed to gather quite a cast and he did an excellent job with them.
Despite my misgivings over the film’s climatic action sequence featuring Shephard’s two attacks upon the Sullivan family, I must admit that I enjoyed ”FREQUENCY” very much. Screenwriter Toby Emmerich created a first-class and original screenplay. And director Gregory Hoblit did an excellent job of conveying Emmerich’s story with a group of talented actors led by Dennis Quaid and James Cavielzel, and a competent crew that included film editor David Rosenbloom. Not only is ”FREQUENCY” is a compelling science-fiction story about time travel and the consequences; it is also a suspenseful thriller and heartwarming family drama. I highly recommend it.
Below is an article I had written on my opinion and observations of the latest episode of "LOST" - (5.08) "LaFleur":
”LOST” – (5.08) “LaFleur” Review
Many fans of ”LOST” have claimed that its Season Five has been the series’ best since the first season. I have to be honest. I do not think I can agree with that sentiment. At least not for Season Five’s first five episodes. I have mixed feelings for it, just as I had for Seasons Two to Four. But there are elements of the fifth season that I have enjoyed so far. And many of those elements had a lot to do with the story arcs surrounding the island castaways left behind when the Oceanic Six departed the island at the end of Season Four.
”LaFleur”, the eighth episode of Season Five, picked up where (5.05) “This Place Is Death” left off – when John Locke turned the Frozen Donkey Wheel from ”(4.13) “There’s No Place Like Home, Part II” and vanished from the island and into the future. Following Locke’s departure, Sawyer, Juliet, Jin, Miles and Daniel are relieved to discover that they no longer have to endure the constant time jumps that have threatened their existence and ended Charlotte Lewis’ in ”This Place Is Death”. However, they are surprised to discover that the time jumps have stopped in 1974, when the Dharma Initiative has been in existence for at least four years. The five survivors decide to return to the beach and make camp, when they comes across a pair of Dharma Initiative members who have been captured by some of the island's native inhabitants, known as the Others. Juliet and Sawyer kill the two Others and free Amy (Reiko Aylesworth), but her husband has been killed. The group returns to the Barracks, where Amy resides; however, she tricks them into walking through the sonic fence which surrounds the Barracks, knocking them unconscious. The rest of the episode focused upon how the five survivors ended up joining the Dharma Initiative in 1974 and the state of their lives, three years later in 1977.
Remember when I had stated that I had mixed feelings about the series’ Season Five? Well, some of those reasons had a lot to do with how Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindehof’s writers handled the story arcs surrounding the two groups of characters during this season. Of course, there are the members of the Oceanic Six who made it off the island – Jack Shephard, Kate Austen, Sayid Jarrah, Sun Kwon, Hugo “Hurley” Reyes and the infant Aaron Littleton. And there are the members of those left behind on the island, included James “Sawyer” Ford, Juliet Burke, John Locke, Jin Kwon, Miles Straume, Charlotte Lewis, Daniel Faraday, Bernard Nadler and his wife, Rose Henderson. Quite frankly, I did not care for the episodes that heavily featured the Oceanic Six. One, I never cared for their lie that left the infant Aaron in the hands of fugitive Kate Austen for nearly three years. Two, I simply did not care for their story arc in the first half of Season Five. I found it contrived, trite and a waste of my time. The story arc featuring those survivors left behind turned out to be a different kettle of fish.
On the other hand, I found myself enjoying the segments surrounding the ‘Left Behinders’ in episodes like (5.01) “Because You Left”, (5.02) “The Lie” and ”This Place Is Death”. So, it is no surprise that after eight episodes, my favorite Season Five episodes turned out to be both (5.03) “The Jughead” and ”LaFleur”, which heavily featured Sawyer, Juliet and the gang. But . . . I am not here to discuss both episodes. Only ”LaFleur”.
What can I say? I loved the episode. I love it so much that I now consider it to be one of my ten favorite episodes of the entire series. And I never thought I would be saying this about a Sawyer-centric episode. Five days after it first aired, I found myself still thinking about it. I am sitting in front of my computer, trying to think of something meaningful or witty to say about this episode. But the words continue to elude me. I have a deep suspicion that my high opinion of ”LaFleur” had more to do with how this episode had such an emotional impact upon me.
Like the Left Behinders, I felt the relief they must have felt over the end of the time jumps, following Locke’s departure. Or the confusion and they had felt upon stumbling across Amy, her dead husband Paul and the two Others. I felt Daniel’s continuing grief over Charlotte’s death . . . or Amy’s grief over Paul’s death. I felt Richard’s curiosity during his conversation with Sawyer (from now on . . . James) about Locke’s appearance twenty years earlier. I felt Horace’s despair over his suspicions that his new wife, Amy, had yet to get over her grief for her husband now dead for three years. I felt James’ desperation to find help for Amy, who was in labor with Horace’s child . . . and Juliet’s reluctance to deal with another childbirth. I certainly felt James’ relief and happiness over the successful birth of Amy’s child and Juliet’s tearful joy. I felt James’ relief and disbelief in discovering that some of the Oceanic Six – Jack, Kate and Hurley – had made it back to the island. And I especially felt the friendship and love both James and Juliet had for one another.
But the above paragraph strikes me as being too simple a way to describe my enjoyment of ”LaFleur”. Foremost, I have to commend writers Elizabeth Sarnoff and Kyle Pennington for penning a well-written episode that revealed the Left Behinders’ experiences with the Dharma Initiative in two time periods without disintegrating into a big mess. The fact that Sarnoff and Pennington also managed to inject some character development – mainly James and Juliet – into a complicated plot has raised my admiration toward their work. Another thing that I liked about ”LaFleur” is that for some reason, it strongly reminded me of one of my favorite ”LOST” episodes of all time - (2.07) “The Other 48 Days”.
This episode is not an exact replica of the Season Two episode that revealed the backstory of the Tail Section passengers' first 48 days on the island. But I feel that both "The Other 48 Days" and "LaFleur" allowed viewers to experience the interactions of a small group - in the case of the Season Five episode, the Left Behinders - developing a close relationship through shared experiences. Mind you, most of James, Juliet, Miles, Jin and Daniel's worst experiences occurred in previous Season Five episodes like "Jughead" and "This Place Is Death". Still, we got to see how they became part of the Dharma Initiative in 1974. And how they had managed to settle into their new lives in 1977.
Josh Holloway literally owned this episode with a performance that nearly knocked my socks off. His James Ford aka James LaFleur has come a long way that rough-hewed Southern con man who had irritated just about everyone back in Season One. This transformation did not happen overnight. In fact, I suspect that it had its origins during late Season Three, when Hugo Reyes forced him to take the mantle of leadership of the Losties during Jack, Sayid, Kate and Locke's absence during that period. The Southern accent has remained intact and so has the snarky sense of humor and talent for pulling a con job. Not only did he managed to convince one of the Dharma Initiative leaders - Horace Goodspeed - that he and his fellow castaways were survivors of a wrecked salvage vessel looking for the Black Rock. Within three years, James had become Head of Security for the Initiative and a new love, namely one Dr. Juliet Burke.
When I had earlier stated that Hollowy had owned this episode, perhaps I should have said almost. After all, Elizabeth Mitchell (who has become one of my favorite actors on this series) was just as good as Juliet Burke. After three years, she has forgo her profession as a fertility doctor by becoming an auto mechanic for the Dharma Initiative. At first, I was surprised that she would choose to become a mechanic, instead of continuing her role as a doctor. But considering her past heartaches in dealing with previously pregnant Others, I eventually understood. But the premature labor of one of the Dharma members, Amy Goodspeed (portrayed by Reiko Aylesworth of "24" fame), led James to convince Juliet to act as midwife for the new Goodspeed baby. The result of Amy's labor led to one of the most beautifully acted moments in the series' entire history, when Mitchell and Holloway expressed Juliet and James' relief and happiness over the baby's successful delivery. I could go on about the strong screen chemistry between the two actors. But I have been aware of that chemistry ever since the Season Three finale - (3.22) "Through the Looking Glass". The interesting thing about James and Juliet's relationship is that the series used their growing friendship in the previous six or seven episodes to show how they eventually became a couple. They seemed to have become the first romantic pairing, whose relationship started out as a mature friendship. Perhaps that is the reason why I find it so appealing.
The other cast members in this episode also did a fine job - especially Jeremy Davies, as the grieving Daniel Farady, Doug Hutchison as the Dharma Initiative mathematician who came off as less self-assured than he did in past episodes, Nestor Campbell as the Others' ageless second-in-command, Richard Alpert and Reiko Aylesworth's sly performance as Amy, another Dharma member, whose life James and Juliet save. Daniel Dae Kim had a nice moment when Jin witnessed Juliet's news about the successful birth of Amy and Horace's baby.
There were many moments in "LaFleur" that have remained stuck in my mind . . . even after five days. Here are a few that I consider truly memorable:
*James, Juliet, Miles and Jin spot a giant, Egyptian-style statue following Locke's disappearance.
*The brief look on James' face after Juliet saves him from being shot by one of the Others.
*Amy tricks the Left Behinders into walking past the sonic fence.
*James mentions Richard's encounter with Locke and the 'Jughead' bomb in 1954 to the very surprised Other.
*James convinces Juliet to remain on the island for a while.
*Juliet and James' happy reaction to the successful birth of Amy and Horace's child.
*James' conversation with Horace about dealing with past loves.
*The sight of James and Juliet in bed, with her body spooning his. She really 'had his back' in that scene.
*Jin delivers three of the Oceanic Six members - Jack, Kate and Hurley - to an awaiting James.
Even thought that last scene was memorable, I must admit that I found myself comparing it to the sight of a roach crawling across a white rug. It also made me wonder how the Oceanic Six's arrival will affect the Left Behinders - now members of the Dharma Initiative. Both Kate and Jack's presence might prove to be a trial for the James/Juliet romance. Right now, I am beginning to wonder if it will survive. And will the Oceanic Six's presence threaten the Left Behinders' standing with the Dharma Initiative? Or will another threat emerge - mainly in the form of the still grieving Daniel Faraday? I guess that in the remaining eight episodes, we will find out.
Here is a gallery featuring the characters, Don and Betty Draper, from the acclaimed AMC series, "MAD MEN":
"MAD MEN" - The DON AND BETTY DRAPER Gallery
In honor of today's inauguration of the new U.S. president and vice-president, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, I decided to list my top ten favorite movies centered around American presidents - whether they be historical or fictional:
"PRESIDENTIAL MOVIES"
1. "My Fellow Americans" (1996) - Jack Lemmon and James Garner portray two former presidents and political enemies - Republican Russell Kramer and Democrat Matt Douglas, who become reluctant allies when they become the target of a conspirator in President Haney's (Dan Ackroyd) administration. Lemmon and Garner were absolutely hilarious as the two feuding ex-presidents forced to become allies in an investigation into a political scandal in this witty and very funny spoof on U.S. politics.
2. "Thirteen Days" (2000) - Roger Donaldson directed this first-rate historical thriller about the Cuban Missle Crisis through the eyes of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Kenneth O'Donnell and other members of the Kennedy Administration. An excellent historical piece that starred Kevin Costner as O'Donnell, Bruce Greenwood as JFK and Steven Culp as Bobby Kennedy.
3. "The American President" (1995) - Michael Douglas and Annette Bening star in this Aaron Sorkin comedy-drama about a widowed U.S. president and a lobbyist who fall in love. It's all aboveboard, but "politics is perception" and sparks fly - from both the President's staff and political enemies.
4. "Nixon" (1995) - Oliver Stone directed this biographical story of former U.S. President Richard Milhous Nixon, from his days as a young boy to his eventual presidency, which ended in shame. Both Anthony Hopkins and Joan Allen are superb as Richard and Patricia Nixon.
5. "All the President's Men" (1976) - Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman are excellent in this outstanding drama about WASHINGTON POST reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who uncover the details of the Watergate scandal that leads to President Nixon's resignation.
6. "Lincoln" (1988) - Based upon Gore Vidal's novel, this excellent two-part miniseries tells the story about Abraham Lincoln's four years in office during the American Civil War. Sam Waterston and Mary Tyler Moore breathed life into their superb portrayals of Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln.
7. "John Adams" (2008) - Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney deservedly won both Emmys and Golden Globes for their excellent portrayals of John and Abagail Adams in this excellent seven-part miniseries about the 2nd U.S. president.
8. "Head of State" (2003) - When a presidential candidate dies unexpectedly in the middle of the campaign, the Democratic party unexpectedly picks a Washington, D.C. alderman, Mays Gilliam (Chris Rock) as his replacement. Rock, Lynn Whitfield and Bernie Mac are hilarious in this first-rate comedy.
9. "Frost/Nixon" (2008) - Ron Howard directed this excellent dramatic retelling of the post-Watergate television interviews between British talk-show host David Frost and former president Richard Nixon. Michael Sheen and Frank Langella are superb in the title roles.
10. "Dave" (1993) - To avoid a potentially explosive scandal when the U.S. President goes into a coma, an affable temp agency owner with an uncanny resemblance, is put in his place. Kevin Kline, Sigourney Weaver and Frank Langella star in this warm comedy directed by Ivan Reitman.
”THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON” Review
Based upon F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1921 short story, ”THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON” tells the story of a New Orleans man named Benjamin Button who ages backward from 1918 to 2003 with bizarre consequences. The movie was directed by David Fincher and starred Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett and Taraji P. Henson.
Judging from an article I had read, it is clear that this movie is more or less a loose adaptation of Fitzgerald’s short story. Aside from the premise of a man aging backwards, there are many differences between the two versions. The main differences center around the fact that in the literary version, Benjamin Button is born physically and mentally as an old man (asking for a rocking chair), and dies physically and mentally young. In the film, Benjamin is born physically old, but with the mental capacity of a newborn; and dies physically young, although his mind aged normally throughout his life. Aside from the dynamics of the main character, the setting changes from mostly late nineteenth century Baltimore in the novel, to mostly twentieth century New Orleans. Also Benjamin’s literary wife is named Hildegarde Moncrief, the daughter of a respected Civil War general, to whom he eventually becomes less attracted. Benjamin’s love in the movie is Daisy Fanning, the granddaughter of one of the tenants at the elderly nursing home where he lives with his black adoptive mother, Queenie.I found ”THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON” to be a technical wonder. I was very impressed by the film’s use of the CGI effects created by a team supervised by Burt Dalton. The movie’s other technical aspects – costume design by Jaqueline West, the art direction, Victor J. Zolfo’s set decorations, and the cinematography by Claudio Miranda – were first-class. I was especially impressed by how Miranda photographed New Orleans in the movie. With the movie’s art direction, the cinematographer did an excellent capturing the rich atmosphere and charm of the Big Easy. And I was especially impressed by the way he filmed 1918 New Orleans through the use of a sepia color for the movie’s prologue that centered on a clockmaker. And director David Fincher did an excellent job in utilizing the movie’s New Orleans setting and technical effects. If only he could have done something about the script . . . and the movie’s pacing.
Do not get me wrong. I am not saying that ”THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON” is a bad movie. Far from it. Not only can it boast a first-class production design, but also an excellent cast led by Brad Pitt. I have been a fan of Pitt’s since I first saw him in a movie I would love to forget - ”COOL WORLD”. But I do feel that he has a tendency to be slightly theatrical. It almost seems as if his acting style was more suited for the stage than in front of a camera. However, he does know how to be subtle when the role calls for it. And his portrayal of Benjamin Button is quite subtle. The character does not seemed to develop much – even following the deaths of his blood father, Thomas Button (Jason Flemyng) and his foster mother Queenie (Taraji P. Henson). It took his romantic problems with Daisy (Cate Blanchett) between the mid 1940s and the 1950s, and the realization that he would soon be too young to help raise his daughter Caroline that led his character to assume dimensions that were lacking earlier in the film. Despite this last minute development of the character, I must admit that Pitt gave one of his better performances in his career.
Pitt was ably supported by Cate Blanchett, who portrayed the love of his life – Daisy Fanning. Mind you, I found her character rather shallow at first. I could dismiss this simply as a case of her being young at the time. But there seemed to be lacking something in Daisy’s character that Blanchett’s excellent performance could not overcome. Quite frankly, I did not find her that interesting. Screenwriter Eric Roth (”FOREST GUMP”) tried to inject some angst into her character by having her fall victim to a car accident in Paris that cut short her dancing career. But I could not buy it. I am sorry, but Daisy did not really become interesting to me until she was forced to raise Caroline without Benjamin, and later take care of him before his death. But Blanchett gave it all she could. Without her, Daisy could have been a disaster - at least for me.
The other supporting characters were excellent. Oscar winner Tilda Swinton gave a poignant performance as Elizabeth Abbott, the wife of a British spy whom Benjamin meets and has an affair with in Russia before the Pearl Harbor attack. Jared Harris was colorful and funny as Captain Mike, the commander of the tugboat that Benjamin works for during the 1930s and early 40s. Julia Ormond, whom I have not seen in ages, gave solid support as the adult Caroline. So did Mahershalalhashbaz Ali as Queenie’s husband, Tizzy and Jason Flemyng as Thomas Button, Benjamin’s brother. But I have to say something about Taraji P. Henson. She portrayed Queenie, an attendant at the New Orleans nursing home who adopts Benjamin as her own. I loved her performance. She was colorful, tough, funny, sharp and pretty much the emotional center of the whole damn film. And it seemed a shame that she did not receive a Golden Globe nomination for her performance.
The first thing I had noticed about ”THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON” was that it strongly reminded me of the 1994 Oscar winning film, ”FOREST GUMP”. In fact, I even nicknamed the movie, ”a backwards ”FOREST GUMP” . And judging from the fact that this movie’s screenwriter, Eric Roth, had also written the 1994 film, I should not have been surprised. But whereas the main tone for ”FOREST GUMP” seemed to be one of historical whimsy, ”BENJAMIN BUTTON” seemed melancholy – especially in the movie’s last hour. The themes of aging and mortality seemed to permeate the movie like a black shroud. Considering the movie’s theme and the fact that Benjamin spent his early years in the company of the elderly, it seemed surprisingly appropriate. And at least it gave the movie its main theme. Without this theme of aging and mortality, the movie could have easily been reduced to a 166 minute film with nothing but a gimmick.
But as much as I liked ”THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON”, it has some flaws. The movie’s main flaws, at least for me, turned out to be – ironically - the script by Eric Roth and the movie’s pacing. Now I realize that movies that cover a span of years or decades tend to run up to at least two-and-a-half to three hours. But did the pacing of this film have to be so goddamn slow? I realize that Fincher wanted to give the movie a Southern atmosphere, considering its setting, but I feel that he went a bit too far. By the time Daisy gave birth to Caroline in the movie’s second half, I found myself screaming for the movie to end. As for the screenplay, Roth filled it with moments and plot points that dragged the film needlessly. I never understood why the movie’s ”present day”, which featured a dying Daisy telling Caroline about Benjamin, was set during the outset of Hurricane Katrina. What was the point? In the end, the hurricane had nothing to do with the story. And although I found Benjamin’s affair with Elizabeth Abbott rather charming at times, I had some problems with it. The sequence started out well with the circumstances of their first meeting. But the buildup to their affair and eventual parting seemed longer than necessary. The one sequence that really irritated me featured Daisy’s accident in Paris. All Roth had to do was featured her encounter with a Parisian taxicab, Benjamin’s trip to Paris and their meeting in a hospital. But . . . no. Instead, Roth wrote this contrived scene that featured little moments from various strangers that led to Daisy being struck by the taxi. It seemed so ridiculous that I nearly groaned in agony.
Despite its flaws – and this movie certainly had plenty - ”THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON” turned out to be a first-class period piece with an interesting premise of a man aging backward. Although this premise could have reduced the movie to nothing more than a gimmick, the topic of aging and mortality lifted the movie to an interesting, yet sad tale filled with emotional moments, great cinematography and solid acting, especially from Brad Pitt. I understand that the movie has received at least five (5) Golden Globe nominations and is a shoe-in for Academy Award nominations as well. I cannot honestly say whether it deserves these accolades or not. But I must admit that it is one of the top twenty (20) movies I have seen in 2008.
Here is a gallery featuring photos from the 1997 Academy Award winning movie, "L.A. CONFIDENTIAL". Directed by Curtis Hanson, the movie is based upon James Ellroy's novel and starred Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe, Guy Pierce and Kim Basinger:
"L.A. CONFIDENTIAL" (1997) Photo Gallery
”FROST/NIXON” Review
Beginning on March 23, 1977, British journalist David Frost conducted a series of twelve (12) interviews with former U.S. President Richard M. Nixon, in which the former commander-in-chief gave his only public apology for the scandals of his administration. Some 29 years later, Peter Morgan’s play – based upon the interviews – reached the London stage and later, Broadway, with rave reviews. Recently, Ron Howard directed the film adaptation of the play, starring Frank Langella as Nixon and Michael Sheen as Frost.
I first became interested in Nixon and the Watergate scandals in my mid-teens, when I came across a series of books that featured columnist Art Buchwald’s humorous articles on the famous political scandal. As I grew older, I became acquainted with other scandals that had plagued the American scandal. But it was Watergate that managed to maintain my interest for so long. Ironically, I have never seen the famous Frost/Nixon interviews that aired in August 1977 – not even on video or DVD. But when I saw the trailer for ”FROST/NIXON”, I knew I had to see this movie. There was one aspect of the trailer that put me off – namely the sight of Frank Langella as Richard Nixon. For some reason, the performance – of which I only saw a minor example – seemed rather off to me. However, my family went ahead and saw the film. And I must admit that I am glad that we did. Not only did ”FROST/NIXON” seemed only better than I had expected. I ended up being very impressed by Langella’s performance. And Michael Sheen’s portrayal of Frost merely increased my positive view of the film.Speaking of the cast, ”FROST/NIXON” had the good luck to be blessed with a cast that featured first rate actors. Matthew MacFadyen gave solid support as John Birt, David Frost’s friend and producer for the London Weekend Television. I felt the same about Oliver Platt’s slightly humorous portrayal of one of Frost’s researchers, Bob Zelnick. Rebecca Hall gave a charming, yet not exactly an exciting performance as Frost’s girlfriend, Caroline Cushing. One of the two supporting performances that really impressed me was Kevin Bacon, who portrayed former Marine officer-turned Nixon aide, Jack Brennan. Bacon managed to convey Brennan’s conservatism and intense loyalty toward the former president without going over-the-top. Another intense performance came from Sam Rockwell, who portrayed another of Frost’s researcher, author James Reston Jr. Rockwell’s performance came as a surprise to me, considering I am more used to seeing him in comedic roles. And I must say that I was very impressed.
But the two characters that drove the movie were Richard M. Nixon and David Frost. Both Frank Langella and Michael Sheen first portrayed these roles in the Broadway version of Peter Morgan’s play. If their stage performances were anything like their work on the silver screen, the theatergoers who had first-hand experience of their stage performances must have enjoyed quite a treat. As I had earlier stated, I originally harbored qualms about Frank Langella portraying Richard Nixon. What I did not know was that the man had already won a Tony award for his stage performance of the role. After watching ”FROST/NIXON”, I could see why. Richard Nixon had possessed a personality and set of mannerisms that were easily caricatured. I have never come across an actor who has captured Nixon’s true self with any real accuracy. But I can think of at least three actors who have left their own memorable stamps in their interpretations of the former president – the late Lane Smith, Sir Anthony Hopkins and now, Frank Langella. One of Langella’s most memorable moments featured a telephone call from Nixon to Frost, in which the former attempts to further psyche the journalist and ends up delivering an angry tirade against the wealthy establishment that he had resented, yet kowtowed toward most of his political career. Michael Sheen had the difficult task of portraying a more complicated character in David Frost and delivered in spades. Sheen’s Frost is an ambitious television personality who wants to be known for more than just frothy talk show host. This reputation makes it impossible for Frost to be taken seriously by Nixon, Zelnick and especially the judgmental Reston.
I also have to compliment Peter Morgan for what struck me as a first-rate adaptation of his stage play. Morgan managed to expand or open up a story that depended heavily upon dialogue. The movie could have easily turned into a filmed play. Thankfully, Morgan’s script managed to avoid this pitfall. And so did Ron Howard’s direction. I must admit that Howard did a great job in ensuring that what could have simply been a well-acted, would turn out to be a tightly paced psychological drama. Hell, the interactions between Frost and Nixon seemed more like a game of psychological warfare between two antagonists, instead of a series of interviews of historical value.
I am trying to think of what I did not like about ”FROST/NIXON”. So far, I am hard pressed to think of a flaw. Actually, I have thought of a flaw – namely the usually competent Toby Jones. Considering how impressed I had been of his performances in ”INFAMOUS” and ”THE PAINTED VEIL”, it seemed a shame that his Swifty Lazar seemed more like a caricature than a flesh-and-blood individual. Perhaps it was a good thing that his appearance in the film had been short. Also, knowing that Frost had questioned Nixon in a series of twelve interviews, it seemed a shame that the movie only focused upon three of those interviews. Naturally, Howard and Morgan could not have included all twelve interviews for fear of dragging the movie’s running time. However, I still could not help but feel that three interviews were not enough and that the film could have benefited from at least one more interview – one that could have effectively bridged the gap between Frost’s second disastrous interview, until the third that led to his own triumph and Nixon’s rare admission.
”FROST/NIXON” could have easily become dialogue-laden film with no action and a slow pace. But thanks to Ron Howard’s direction, Peter Morgan’s adaptation of his play and the superb performances of the two leads – Frank Langella and Michael Sheen, the movie struck me as a fascinating character piece about two very different men who had met during the spring of 1977 for a historical series of interviews that seemed to resemble more of a game of psychological warfare.
Below are five of my favorite Christmas songs of all time. Enjoy:
TOP FIVE CHRISTMAS SONGS
