Thursday, November 28, 2013
"THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" (2001) Review
Over ten years ago, the BBC aired "", a four-part television adaptation of Anthony Trollope's 1875 novel. Adapted by Andrew Davies and directed by David Yates, the miniseries starred David Suchet, Shirley Henderson and Matthew Macfadyen.
"THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" told the story of a Central European financier's impact upon upper-crust British society during the Victorian era. Augustus Melmotte arrives in London with his second wife and his daughter, Marie in the 1870s. Not long after his arrival, Melmotte announces a new scheme to finance a railroad project from Salt Lake City in Utah to the Gulf of Mexico. And he promises instant fortune to those who would invest in his scheme. The Melmotte family is also surrounded by a circle of decadent aristocrats and nouveau riche businessmen, all trying to get a piece of the financial pie. One of the investors is Sir Felix Carbury, a young and dissolute baronet who is quickly running through his widowed mother's savings. In an attempt to restore their fortunes, his mother, Lady Matilda Carbury writes historical potboilers - a 19th century predecessor to 20th century romance novels. She also plans to have Felix marry Marie, who is an heiress in her own right; and marry daughter Henrietta (Hetta) to their wealthy cousin, Roger Carbury. Although Marie falls in love with Felix, Melmotte has no intention of allowing his daughter to marry a penniless aristocrat. And Hetta shows no interest in Roger, since she has fallen in love with his young ward, an engineer named . However, Montague also proves to be a thorn in Melmotte's side, due to his suspicions about the legitimacy over the railroad scheme.
As one can see, the story lines that stream from Trollope's novel seemed to be plenty. In a way, the plot reminds me of the numerous story arcs that permeated 2004's "HE KNEW HE WAS RIGHT". Although some of the story arcs have nothing to do with Augustus Melmotte, nearly everyone seemed to have some connection to the financier. The exceptions to this rule proved to be the characters of American-born Mrs. Winifred Hurtle, Roger Carbury and Ruby Ruggles, a young farm girl who lives on Roger's estate. Mrs. Hurtle's story was strictly limited to her efforts to regain the affections of former lover and help Ruby deal with the licentious Sir Felix. Roger's story arc was limited to his unsuccessful efforts to win Henrietta's heart and deal with his knowledge of Paul and Mrs. Hurtle's relationship. Fortunately, "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" seemed to possess a tighter story than "HE KNEW HE WAS RIGHT". To a certain degree.
But I cannot deny that "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" was one of the most entertaining adaptations of a Trollope novel I have ever seen. If I must be honest, I enjoyed it more than I did "HE KNEW HE WAS RIGHT" or 1982's "THE BARCHESTER CHRONICLES". One of the reasons I enjoyed it so much was due to its portrayal of society's greed and opportunism. I have heard that Trollope had written the novel in protest against the greed and corruption of the 1870s, which resulted in the Long Depression that lasted between 1873 and 1879. The ironic thing is that the economic situation that Trollope believed had permeated British society during the 1870s had been around for a long time and would continue to permeate the world's economic markets time again - including the recent downturn that has cast a shadow on today's economies. Trollope's Augustus Melmotte is today's Bernie Madoff or Robert Maxwell.
Another aspect of "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" is that it revealed the darker aspects of Victorian society on a more personal level. I did not know whether to be amused or disgusted by the manner in which young British scions such as Sir Felix Carbury scrambled to win the affections of Marie Melmotte and get their hands on her money; or desperate debutantes like Georgiana Longestaffe willing to marry Jewish banker Mr. Brehgert, despite her contempt for his religious beliefs and social position. I doubt that the likes of Georgiana would never contemplate becoming an author of cheesy novels, like Lady Carbury or marrying a man with no funds - like .
Thanks to Davies' screenplay and David Yates' direction, "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" permeated with a richly dark and comic style that beautifully suited Trollope's tale. Hardly anyone - aside from a few such as Paul Montague, Hetta Carbury and Mr. Brehgert - was spared from the pair's biting portrayal of Trollope's characters. Two of my favorite scenes featured a ball held by the Melmottes in Episode One and a banquet in honor of the Chinese Emperor in Episode Three. The banquet scene especially had me on the floor laughing at the sight of British high society members gorging themselves on the dishes prepared by Melmotte's cook.
Although "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" is my favorite Trollope adaptation - so far - I must admit that I had a few problems with it. One, Andrew Davies' portrayal of the Paul Montague character struck me as slightly boring. Like his literary counterpart, Paul found himself torn between his love for Hetta and his sexual past with Mrs. Hurtle. But Davies' Paul seemed so . . . noble and stalwart that I found it hard to believe this is the same gutless wonder from Trollope's novel. And if I must be brutally honest, I found his relationship with Hetta Carbury to be another example of a boring romance between two boring young lovers that seemed to permeate Victorian literature. A part of me longed for Paul to end up with Winifred Hurtle. At least he would have found himself in a more interesting romance. I have one more quibble. In a scene featuring a major quarrel between Melmotte and his daughter Marie, there was a point where both were in each other's faces . . . growling like animals. Growling? Really? Was that necessary? Because I do not think it was.
One would think I have a problem with Cillian Murphy and Paloma Baeza's performances as Paul Montague and Hetta Carbury. Trust me, I did not. I thought both gave solid and competent performances. I feel they were sabotaged by Trollope's portrayal of their characters as "the young lovers" and Davies' unwillingness to put some zing into their romance. Miranda Otto made a very interesting Mrs. Hurtle, despite her bad attempt at a Southern accent. And Allan Corduner and Fenella Woolgar both gave solid performances that I did not find particularly memorable. On the other hand, I felt more than impressed by Cheryl Campbell as the charming and somewhat manipulative Lady Carbury; Douglas Hodge as the love-sick Roger Carbury; Oliver Ford-Davies as the grasping, yet bigoted Mr. Longestaffe; Helen Schlesinger's funny performance as the clueless Madame Melmotte; a poignant performance from Jim Carter, who portrayed Mr. Brehgert; and Anne-Marie Duff, who managed to create a balance between Georgiana Longstaffe's strong-willed willingness to marry a man of another faith and her self-absorption and bigotry.
However, the three performances that stood head above the others came from David Suchet, Shirley Henderson and Matthew Macfadyen. Suchet could have easily portrayed the scheming and gregarious Augustus Melmotte as a cartoonish character. And there were times when it seemed he was in danger of doing so. But Suchet balanced Melmotte's over-the-top personality with a shrewdness and cynicism that I found appealing - especially when those traits mocked the pretentiousness and hypocrisy of British high society. Shirley Henderson proved to be the perfect person to portray Melmotte's only daughter, Marie. Superficially, she seemed like a chip off the old block. But Henderson injected a great deal of compassion and poignancy into Marie's character, making it very easy for me to sympathize toward her unrequited love for Sir Felix Carbury and the heartache she felt upon discovering his lack of love for her. Matthew Macfadyen must have finally made a name for himself in his memorable portrayal of the dissolute Sir Felix Carbury. I cannot deny that Macfadyen revealed a good deal of Sir Felix's charm. But the actor made it pretty obvious that his character's charm was at best, superficial. Considering some of the roles he has portrayed over the decade that followed "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW", I believe Macfadyen's Sir Felix must have been one of the most self-absorbed characters in his repertoire. And he did a superb job with the role. It is a pity that he never received an acting nomination or award for his performance.
One cannot talk about "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" without pointing out the sumptuous production designs created by Gerry Scott. They were superb. With contributions from Diane Dancklefsen and Mark Kebby's art direction, Caroline Smith's set decorations, Chris Seager's photography and Andrea Galer's costume designs; Scott and his team did a wonderful job in re-creating Victorian society in the 1870s. I was especially impressed at how Galer's costumes captured the early years of that decade. I would never call Nicholas Hooper's score particularly memorable. But I cannot deny that it suited both the story's theme and setting.
Although I found a few aspects of "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" to complain about - notably the Paul Montague and Hetta Carbury characters. I cannot deny that it is a first-rate production, thanks to Andrew Davies' adaptation, David Yates' direction and a fine cast led by David Suchet. More importantly, the story's theme of greed and corruption leading to economic chaos was not only relevant to the mid-to-late Victorian era, but also for today's society. "THE WAY WE LIVE NOW" strike me as a story for all times.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Below is a gallery featuring photos from Martin Scorsese's biopic about aviator/movie producer Howard Hughes. Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett, Kate Beckinsale, Alec Baldwin, John C. Reilly, Danny Huston and Alan Alda starred:
"THE AVIATOR" (2004) Photo Gallery
Friday, November 22, 2013
TIME MACHINE: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY (1917-1963)
Today marks the 50th anniversary of the assassination of the 35th President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, in Dallas, Texas. Kennedy was fatally shot by a sniper, while traveling with his wife First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, Texas Governor John Connally, and wife Nellie Connally, in a presidential motorcade.
With the 1964 Presidential Election looming in the following, President John F. Kennedy wanted to travel to Texas for the following reasons:
*the Kennedy-Johnson ticket barely won the state in 1960 and Kennedy wanted to help mend political fences among the leading Texas Democratic party members
*Kennedy wanted to begin his quest for reelection in November 1964; and
*Kennedy wanted to help raise more campaign fund contributions for the Democratic Party
President Kennedy, along with Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson (formerly a senator from Texas) and Governor Connnally met in El Paso, Texas on June 5, 1963; to agreed upon the details for a presidential visit in Texas. President Kennedy's trip to Texas was first announced to the public in September 1963. And the exact motorcade route for Dallas was finalized on November 18 and announced to the public a few days before November 22. U.N. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson visited Dallas on October 24, 1963 to mark United Nations Day. He was jeered, jostled, hit by a sign and spat upon during the visit. Stevenson, along with several other people, advised Kennedy to avoid Dallas during his Texas visit, but the President refused their advice.
The President and the First Lady arrived in San Antonio, Texas on November 21, 1963. There, they visited the Brooks Air Force Base. Later, they attended a Testimonial dinner at the Rice Hotel in Houston, honoring Congressman Albert Thomas, before finally arriving at Fort Worth, where they stayed at the Hotel Texas.
The following day on November 22, the presidential couple attended a Chamber of Commerce breakfast at the hotel in Fort Worth. Later, they boarded Air Force One, which conveyed them and the rest of the presidential entourage to the Love Field airport in Dallas, at 11:40 p.m. (CT). President Kennedy was scheduled to give a speech at a steak luncheon held at the the Dallas Business and Trade Mart. They proceeded to Dealey Plaza in a motorcade that conveyed them from the airport. Kennedy, the First Lady, Connally and his wife were in the second convertible with driver Secret Service Agent William Greer and Advance Agent and SAIC Roy Kellerman (also Secret Service). At 12:29 p.m., the President's motorcade entered Dealey Plaza after a right turn from Main Street onto Houston Street. Over two dozen known and unknown amateur and professional still and motion-picture photographers captured the last living images of President Kennedy. As the motorcade slowly approached the Texas School Book Depository, shots were fired at President Kennedy's limousine after it made the turn from Houston onto Elm Street, around 12:30 p.m. (CT). Most witnesses heard three shots.
As seen in the film clip shot by private citizen Abraham Zapruder, the third shot struck President Kennedy in the head. Governor Connally was also seriously wounded. During the shots a witness named James Tague was also wounded, when he received a minor wound on his right cheek. After the President had been shot in the head, Mrs. Kennedy began to climb out onto the back of the limousine, though she later had no recollection of doing so. Secret Service Agent Clint Hill believed she was reaching for something. Hill jumped onto the back of the limousine, while at the same time, Mrs. Kennedy returned to her seat. He clung to the car as it left Dealey Plaza and rushed to Parkland Memorial Hospital.
Dallas Police Office Marion Baker confronted Lee Harvey Oswald, a former U.S. Marine veteran and employee at the Texas Book Depository, inside the building's second floor lunchroom, over a minute after the last shot was fired. Baker claimed that he had heard the first shot, as he approached the book depository and the Dallas Textile Building. When building superintendent Roy Truly identified Oswald as an employee, the latter was released. Meanwhile, President Kennedy was declared dead at Parkland Hospital around 1:00 p.m. His body was given the last rites by a Catholic priest. The doctors had to operate on Governor Connally at least two times that day. Fifteen minutes after the President was declared dead, Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit was shot dead, not far from Oswald's rooming house. At least thirteen people saw a man shoot Tippit. Five of the witnesses identified Oswald in police lineups, and a sixth identified him the following day. Four others identified Oswald from a photograph. Vice-President Johnson, his wife Lady Bird Johnson and other members of the presidential entourage returned to Air Force One at Love Field. Mrs. Kennedy, and several Secret Service agents escorting the President's body, eventually joined them. Before Air Force One departed for Washington D.C., Federal judge Sarah T. Hughes swore Vice-President Johnson in as the country's 36th President.
Oswald was arrested by the Dallas police at the Texas Theater (movie theater) that afternoon. And around 7:10 p.m. that evening, he was charged with the murder of Officer Tippit. Shortly after 1:30 a.m., on November 23, Oswald was formally charged with the murder of President Kennedy. He declared that he was innocent and had been framed for the murders. Oswald was interrogated during his two days at the Dallas Police Headquarters. On November 24, 1963; Oswald was being led through the building's basement for his transfer to the county jail, when he was murdered by nightclub owner Jack Ruby. Oswald was rushed to Parkland Memorial Hospital, but died at 1:07 p.m. (CT). Ruby was charged and convicted with his murder. The state funeral for President John F. Kennedy was held on the following day, November 25, 1963. Following at service at St. Matthew's Cathedral, Kennedy was buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
President Johnson initiated the Warren Commission, chaired by Chief Justice Earl Warren of the Supreme Court to investigate the assassination. The investigation lasted for ten months, between November 1963 to September 1964. It concluded that President Kennedy had been assassinated by lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald. It also concluded that Jack Ruby also acted alone, when he killed Oswald before the latter could stand trial. Despite the findings of the Warren Commission, many believe to this day that President Kennedy was killed, due to a government conspiracy and that Oswald had been framed. In contrast to the Warren Commission's conclusions, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded in 1978 that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. But they do believe that Oswald was a part of the conspiracy.
The following books can provide more information and speculations on the John F. Kennedy Assassination:
*"Who Really Killed Kennedy?: 50 Years Later: Stunning New Revelations About the JFK Assassination" (2013) by
*"LIFE The Day Kennedy Died Remembers" (2013) by the Editors of LIFE Magazine
*"Five Days in November"(2013) by Clint Hill and Lisa McCubbin
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
"AVATAR" (2009) Review
Had twelve (12) years really passed between the time director/producer James Cameron released his 1997 Oscar winning movie, "TITANIC" and his 2009 film, "AVATAR"? It is true. Twelve years had passed since the releases of ”TITANIC” and ”AVATAR”. And I must say that it was worth the wait.
Set in the year 2154, ”AVATAR” told the story of Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a paraplegic former U.S. Marine, who arrived on the planet of Pandora to replace his murdered twin brother in a program that have created human-Na’vi hybrids called avatars, which are controlled by genetically matched human operators, due to humans’ inability to breathe the moon’s atmosphere. Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), the head of the Avatar Program, considered him an inadequate replacement for his brother, relegating him to a bodyguard role. Pandora, a lush, Earth-like moon of the planet Polyphemus, in the Alpha Centauri system, has been targeted by an Earth corporation administered by Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) called RDA. It wants to mine Pandora for a valuable mineral called unobtanium. Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), a former Marine and leader of the Humans’ security forces, promised Jake his "real legs" back in exchange for intelligence about the natives and what it will take to make them abandon Hometree, which rests above a large deposit of unobtanium.
When Jake escorted Augustine and biologist Norm Spellman (Joel David Moore) on an exploratory mission in their avatar forms, the group is attacked by a large predator, and Jake became separated and lost. Attempting to survive the night in Pandora’s dangerous jungles, he is rescued by Neytiri (Zoë Saldaña), a female Na'vi. Neytiri brings Jake back to Hometree, which is inhabited by Neytiri’s clan, the Omaticaya. Mo'at, (C. C. H. Pounder), the Na'vi shaman and Neytiri's mother, instructed her to teach him their ways. Within three months or so, Jake fell in love with Neytiri. Unfortunately, he found himself conflicted between his feelings for the female Na’vi and her clan, and his deal with Colonel Quaritch.
Judging from the reactions of many critics and filmgoers, James Cameron had created a very unique film. I would certainly agree with this opinion – especially in regard to the physical and visual world of Pandora. Quite frankly, I found it lush and strangely beautiful. I also have to commend Cameron for not only creating Pandora’s strange world, but also for guiding crew members like production designers Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg; the art direction team led by Todd Cherniawsky, Kevin Ishioka, and Kim Sinclair; cinematographer Mauro Fiore; the special effects team led by Dave Booth; and the visual effects team. Cameron took his work even further by hiring Dr. Paul Frommer of USC to create a Na'vi language and culture. Actors like Sam Worthington, Zoë Saldaña and C.C.H. Pounder had to learn the new language.
I did not have any real problems with the movie’s plot. Cameron did a solid job in writing a story that dealt with environmental issues, along with imperialism and biodiversity by consolidating them into a conflict between the nature-based (or primitive in certain circles) Na’vi and the Humans’ military-industrial complex represented by the RDA Corporation and its military force. Sounds familiar? It should. Cameron claimed that he was inspired from such movies as ”AT PLAY IN THE FIELDS OF THE LORD” and ”THE EMERALD FOREST”, which feature clashes between cultures and civilizations. He also acknowledged his film’s connection to the 1990 Academy Award winning film, ”DANCES WITH WOLVES” in the storyline featuring Jake’s connection to the Na’vi. Personally, I found myself wondering if ”AVATAR” was simply ”DANCES WITH WOLVES” on another planet. Honestly. The two movies struck me as being that similar.
Some fans might accuse me of hinting that Cameron’s story lacked any originality. Well, they would be right. I am hinting exactly that. After all, this would not be the first time for the Canadian-born director. At least three of his most famous films, ”AVATAR” included, bore strong similarities to other fictional works. In an ARTICLE I had posted on my blog, I had pointed out the strong similarities between ”TITANIC” to the 1937 Jeanette MacDonald/Nelson Eddy film, ”MAYTIME”. And after his 1984 film, ”THE TERMINATOR” hit the theaters, a well-known science-fiction writer named Harlan Ellison pointed out that the movie bore a strong resemblance to two television episodes he had written. The writer ended up receiving ”acknowledgement to the works of” credit on video and cable releases of the movie, as well as a cash settlement of an undisclosed amount. And if the love story between Jake and Neytiri bore a strong resemblance with the one featured in the 1990 film (in that story, the female lead was a white woman raised by the Lakota), the movie’s score written by James Horner seemed to seal the deal for me. It bore a very strong resemblance to Native American music.
Another aspect of Cameron’s script that struck a similar note with me was its dialogue. Let me be frank. I found it just as cheesy and unoriginal as the dialogue found in ”TITANIC”. A good example could be found in Colonel Quaritch’s speech to the human newcomers to Pandora. When he uttered the phrase, ”You’re not in Kansas anymore”, I practically winced. The Wachowski Brothers used that phrase with a more memorable and original twist in their 1999 movie, ”THE MATRIX”. However, I must admit that ”AVATAR” did have one quote that I found particularly memorable. During one of his narratives about the Na’vi, Jake Scully said the following:
” Everything is backwards now, like out there is the true world and in here is the dream.”
Okay, it does not really seem like much in written form. But Sam Worthington’s interpretation of the line made it memorable for me.
One complaint lobbied against the movie was that it pandered to the cliché of the ”white man savior of the noble savage”. Frankly, I believe that the only grounds for this accusation centered around Jake rallying the Na’vi to fight against the Human assault against the Hometree. I figured that since he was responsible for giving Quaritch the means to launch the assault, I could let the scene slide. However, I failed to spot any further evidence to support this argument. After all, it was Neytiri’s father Eytucan, who allowed Jake to remain with the Na’vi. Neytiri's mother Mo'at ordered Neytiri to introduce him to Na’vi culture. Mo'at was also responsible for giving Jake a chance to redeem himself for his earlier betrayal. Another female - namely Trudy - was responsible for rescuing Jake, Grace and Norm from the RDA cell. And it certainly was NOT Jake who defeated the movie’s main villain, Colonel Quaritch, in the end. No one could ever mistake this film for the 1953 movie, ”HIS MAJESTY’S O’KEEFE”.
Speaking of Sam Worthington, he led the cast as the a paraplegic former U.S. Marine Jake Scully, who found himself drawn to Pandora and the Na’vi culture. Although I would not consider Jake to be one of his more complicated or complex characters, I thought that Worthington did an excellent job in conveying Jake’s conflict between the Humans’ agenda and his love for Neytiri and the Na’vi. He also managed to effectively project Jake’s array of emotions following the character’s arrival on Pandora, whether in Human form or connected to his Na’vi-Human form. And he also did a top-notch job as the film’s narrator. Believe or not, not every actor or actress has a talent for verbal narration.
Zoë Saldaña was cast as Neytiri, the Na’vi huntress with whom Jake fell in love. Saldaña did not simply provide Neytiri’s voice. She also provided the character’s body language and facial expression via a process called motion/performance capture. This process has already been used in movies such as two of the latest ”STAR WARS” movies, the ”MUMMY” films, ”KING KONG”, the last two ”LORD OF THE RINGS” movies and "THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY". I must admit that Saldaña did an excellent job in guiding Neytiri’s character from being slightly resentful and contemptuous toward Jake, to being a female in love and finally to the fierce and determined Na’vi warrior determined to protect her home. Frankly, she was my favorite character in the movie.
Sigourney Weaver found herself being directed by Cameron for the second time as Dr. Grace Augustine, a scientist and creator of the Avatar Program. Her Grace is a no-nonsense woman with a dislike toward Selfridge, Quaritch and the RDA Corporation. Her bluntness was tempered by a genuine desire to study the Na’vi and Pandora. Weaver did a solid job in portraying these aspects of Grace’s character. Stephen Lang could have easily portray Colonel Quaritch as a one-dimensional villain. In fact, he nearly drifted into such a portrayal on one or two occasions. But in the end, Lang managed to control himself and give a first-rate performance. He even infused a touch of homme fatale into his performance in scenes that featured Colonel Quaritch’s attempts to “seduce” Jake into providing information about the Na’vi and their Hometree. I found that aspect an interesting twist.
Many critics had dismissed Michelle Rodriguez’s performance as Marine pilot Trudy Chacon as another one of her many tough chick roles. From a superficial viewpoint, they might be right. But if I must be honest, I found that Neytiri seemed to fit that role a lot better than Trudy. There was something about Rodriguez’s role that struck me as different from her previous ones. Her Trudy seemed like a laid back type with a warm and cheeky sense of humor – completely different from the roles that the actress had portrayed on ”LOST” and in ”THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS”. I consider this a good thing, for it told me that Rodriguez was quite capable of portraying more than one type of role. If I must be frank, I would not consider Parker Selfridge to be one of Giovanni Ribisi’s best roles. Mind you, the actor managed to keep himself from drifting into a purely hammy performance. But I found his portrayal of the RDA Corporation’s administrator as a walking cliché of corporate greed and rather unoriginal. The only other movies I have ever seen Laz Alonso in were ”JARHEAD”, 2008's ”THE MIRACLE OF ST. ANNA”, and 2009's "FAST AND FURIOUS". I found his role as Neyriti’s fiancé, Tsu'Tey, to be a different kettle of fish. His Tsu’Tey was an aggressive and slightly arrogant warrior with a deep distrust of Jake and the other Humans. Like Lang, Alonso could have easily allowed his character to drift into a one-dimensional performance. I have to give kudos to the actor for making Tsu’Tey somewhat sympathetic in the end. I suspect that deep down, the character truly loved and respected Neytiri, despite the political and cultural nature of their betrothal. I also enjoyed the way Alonso used the motion capture suit and body language to convey his character’s aggressive nature.
I have already commented upon the special and visual effects in ”AVATAR” that managed to blow everyone’s minds, including mine. However, I could have done without viewing the movie with 3-D glasses. I simply did not see how filming the movie with a 3-D camera was worth the effort. I found the 3-D effects found in the now defunct TERMINATOR 2: 3-D show at Universal Studios Hollywood more impressive. And since I already wear glasses, wearing an extra pair of 3-D glasses proved to be very annoying for me. And while we are on the subject of quibbles, I found Horner’s score and the theme song performed by Leona Lewis called ”I See You” not that impressive, either. In fact, I am surprised that the song managed to earn a Golden Globe Award nomination.
After reading most of this article, one might end up with the belief that I have mixed feelings about ”AVATAR”. Let me assure you that my views are not mixed. Yes, I have some quibbles with the story’s lack of originality and sometimes pedestrian dialogue. And I found the 3-D photography not worth the effort. But I still enjoyed the movie’s plot very much. It was a solid tale that centered on a theme I wholeheartedly support. The cast, led by Sam Worthington and Zoë Saldaña did an excellent job. As Leonardo di Caprio and Kate Winslet did twelve years ago, Worthington and Saldaña managed to create a great screen team that proved to be the heart and soul of the film through their performances. And from a visual point-of-view, Cameron outdid himself in his creation of the world of Pandora.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
"SHADOW OF THE MOON" (1957/1979) Book Review
I first became aware of British author, M.M. Kaye back in the early 1980s, when I read her famous 1978 bestseller, "THE FAR PAVILIONS". Intrigued by the author’s portrayal of the British and Indian societies in 19th century, I read another one of her novels – namely "SHADOW OF THE MOON".
First published in 1957, "SHADOW OF THE MOON" was re-released 22 years later to cash in on the success of "THE FAR PAVILIONS". Like the latter, the novel was set in 19th century India. "SHADOW OF THE MOON" told the story of Winter de Ballesteros, the only daughter of an aristocratic Spaniard whose family lived in India and the beloved granddaughter of an English earl. Orphaned at the age of six, Winter is forced to leave India and live with her mother’s family in England for the next eleven years. Betrothed at an early age to Conway Barton, the nephew-in-law of her great-aunt and an official of the East India Company, serving as Commissioner of the Lunjore District, Winter finally leaves England to return to India in order to marry him. Barton’s military aide, Captain Alex Randall of the British East India Company (aka "John Company"), is assigned to act as escort for Winter’s return journey to the East.
Unfortunately for Winter, she encountered two misfortunes after her arrival in India – the discovery that her new husband is a debauched and overweight drunk who had married her for her fortune; and that she had fallen in love with Alex Randall. She is unaware that Alex has also fallen in love with her. While Winter struggled with her love for Alex and her unhappy marriage, events slowly came to a boil that lead to the outbreak of the Sepoy Rebellion in which the Indian soldiers of the Bengal Army rose against the British between May 1857 and June 1858. The violent outbreak of sepoy troops against the rule of the British East India Company forced both Winter and Alex to experience the violence that explodes throughout most of India and acknowledge their feelings for one another.
For a novel that is supposed to be about the famous Sepoy Rebellion of 1857-58, most of it seemed to be set before the rebellion’s actual outbreak. The novel’s first six chapters focused upon Winter’s parents and her childhood in both India and England. The next thirty-four (34) chapters focused upon Winter and Alex’s journey to India, the introduction of Anglo society in India, Winter’s marriage to Conway Barton in Lunjore, the growing tensions between the British rulers and those who have much to resent them, Winter and Alex’s growing feelings for one another . . . well, you get the picture. By the time Winter, Alex and other British residents encounter the rebellion in Lunjore, Chapter 40 had arrived. Only Chapters 40 through 51 featured the actual rebellion.
Ironically, this does not bother me. I suspect that "SHADOW OF THE MOON" is basically a romantic drama with a historical backdrop. M.M. Kaye was born in India to a family that had served the British Raj for generations. She spent most of her childhood and early years of marriage in India, which made her a strong authority on the Anglo-Indian and Indian societies of the British Raj. "SHADOW OF THE MOON" is filled with strong historical facts about Great Britain during the first five decades in the 19th century, the East India Company, the Anglo-Indian and Indian cultures in the 1850s, and the politically charged atmosphere leading up to the Sepoy Rebellion and facts about the rebellion itself.
Reading the novel made it easy for me to see why M.M. Kaye had gained such fame as a historical novelist. Along with Alexandre Dumas, Susan Howatch, John Jakes, George MacDonald Fraser, James Michener, Ken Follet and Cecelia Holland, I consider her to be among the best historical novelists. Not only is "SHADOW OF THE MOON" filled with interesting facts about the British Raj in the 1850s, it is a well-written romantic drama about two people who managed to find love despite the obstacles of a loveless marriage and political turmoil. The two main characters – Winter and Alex – are well written characters that managed to avoid the usually clichés found in many inferior romantic paperback novels. Well . . . Winter and Alex’s characterizations managed to avoid most of the clichés. There are a few clichés about them that seem very familiar:
*Winter’s age spans between 17 and 19 in most of the novel. Most heroines of historical tend to be between the ages of 16 and 17.
*The age difference between Winter and Alex is 13 years – which is typical for the heroine and hero of most historical romances.
*The heroine, Winter, spends most of the novel stuck in an unhappy marriage with a much older man.
Despite these minor clichés, Winter and Alex turned out to be two very interesting and well-rounded characters. Surprisingly, I can say the same of the supporting characters, whether they be British or Indian. A few characters stood out for men – notably Alex’s cynical Indian orderly Niaz; a sharp-tongued British socialite named Louisa “Lou” Cottar; an intelligent and intensely political Indian nobleman who becomes a dangerous enemy of the British Raj by the name of Kishan Prisad; Lord Carylon, an arrogant and temperamental English aristocrat with a strong desire for Winter; and Conway Barton, the latter’s corrupt and narrow-minded husband, who lacks a talent for political administration.
Aside from a few clichés that are a part of Winter and Alex’s characterizations, I have a few other quibbles regarding the novel . . . or Kaye’s writing style. First of all, she had a tendency to describe a historical event or character in a slightly grandiose manner. One example featured the death of a famous military figure named John Nicholson. Kaye also had a bad habit of announcing an important sequence before it unveiled . . . taking away any moment of surprise for the reader. This was apparent in the following passage:
"'Two more days to go', thought Alex that night, leaning against the wall and watching a quadrille danced at the Queen’s Birthday Ball.
But there were no more days. Only hours."
In the following chapter, Winter, Alex and a host of other characters experience firsthand, the horror of the rebellion in Lunjore. I would have preferred if the beginning of the Lunjore rebellion had taken me by surprise.
Despite Kaye’s occasional forays into over-the-top prose, she created a sweeping and detailed novel filled with romance, adventure, historical accuracy and well-written characters. Although "THE FAR PAVILIONS" is considered her masterpiece, I must admit that "SHADOW OF THE MOON" remains my most favorite novel she has ever written.