"CHARMED" RETROSPECT: "The Death of Dr. Williamson"

"CHARMED" RETROSPECT: ”The Death of Dr. Williamson”

I just recently finished watching the Season Two episode from ”CHARMED”, (2.20) "Astral Monkey" . There were some things that were said in this episode that really pissed me off. And all of my complaints centered upon the character, Dr. Curtis Williamson.

Curtis Williamson first appeared in an earlier episode, (2.12) ”Awakened”. In this episode, Piper became infected with a deadly disease called Arroyo Fever, after eating some South American fruit she had purchased to serve at her club, P3. After her sisters and later Leo had both cured her using magic, Williamson became obsessed in discovering the reason behind Piper’s miraculous recovery from a disease that had no cure.

In ”Astral Monkey”, Williamson’s obsession not led him to continuously contact Piper by letter, but use the Halliwells’ blood drawn by the doctor in ”Awakened” to experiment on a trio of monkeys kept in his lab. Eventually, the Halliwells and Leo learned about Dr. Williamson’s experiments when the monkey with Prue’s abilities, astral projected to the manor. Piper, Prue and Phoebe went to the hospital to examine Dr. Williamson’s laboratory and Leo consulted the Elders . . . after they discovered that the Charmed Ones’ blood had been accidentally injected into Dr. Williamson and he ended up with their abilities. The following is what Leo had to say on the matter:

Piper: So what's the bad news?

Leo: Well, simply put, Dr. Williamson is cosmically screwed. He's got your powers in his mortal body. It took generations to prepare you for that, you can handle it, he can't.

Mortal body? Once again, the audience are led to believe that the Halliwells are not mortals. And yet, the series has proven over again that they were mortals. This point was specifically made in the Season Three episode, (3.22) "All Hell Breaks Loose", when Piper died from a gunshot wound in the first timeline before the demon Tempus changed it on behalf of the Source and the whitelighter Elders.

However, the following comment made by Leo really pissed me off:

Phoebe: Wait, are you saying that out powers are in our blood and he injected himself with it?

Leo: That blood, yeah. See, the spell that you cast to cure Piper changed everything and now it's changing Dr. Williamson. See, your magic is meant for doing good but in the wrong person, somebody not ready for it, that need to do good things...

Piper: Could go bad?

Leo: Real bad. Piper, it's nobody's fault. Dr. Williamson chose his own path. This is not the consequence of anybody's actions except his own. Still, you have to find a way to stop him before things get worse.

One, Leo had claimed that the spell Prue and Phoebe had cast to cure Piper in ”Awakened” was partly responsible for the Halliwells' abilities affecting Dr. Williamson. But it got worse. Then he further claimed that none of them - Piper, Prue and Phoebe, and he - were not responsible for Williamson’s abuse of their abilities and the latter’s effect upon him. Only Williamson was to blame.

Leo . . . Let me take a deep breath, here. Constance Burge, who wrote ”Astral Monkey”, really got the whitelighter’s character down pat in this episode. It seemed quite obvious – at least to me – that Leo’s feelings for Piper have constantly led him to spout stupid lies in order to placate any negative feelings she might be experiencing. In ”Astral Monkey”, she felt guilt for failing to respond to his letters about her recovery from Arroyo Fever . . . and because he was a mortal that she and her sisters had to kill.

After listening to Leo’s attempt to solely blame Williamson over the entire incident, I still find it amazing how fans continue to condemn Brad Kern for some of the series' bad writing, when Burge was also responsible for the crap that popped up during her tenure as executive producer of ”CHARMED”. And I am condemning Burge for an act that Kern consistently committed in the series’ future – namely give the Halliwells slack for some of their questionable actions in both ”Awakened” and ”Astral Monkey”.

I am quite certain that Curtis Williamson had been partially responsible for what happened. After all, he became obsessed with finding the source of Piper's "miraculous" cure from Arroyo Fever in "Awakened". Even the hospital’s Chief of Staff, Dr. Jeffries, warned him to allow the matter to drop. But the Halliwells and Leo should have accepted some of the blame over the entire situation. And Burge refused to allow this to happen in her script. Back in ”Awakened”, Prue and Phoebe used magic to cure Piper’s fever, when they should not have done so in the first place. After the pair reversed the spell and Piper fell ill for the second time, Leo stepped in and cured her . . . when he should not have done so. Because of Prue, Phoebe and Leo’s actions, Piper managed to avoid facing the consequences of her actions. And it was Piper who had started this whole mess in motion when she became greedy and decided to purchase South American fruit that had not been inspected by U.S. Customs.

It had been bad enough when Vivian and Valerie Mayhew’s script for ”Awakened” had failed to allow Piper face any legal ramifications from the U.S. government for her act of greed. After all, the episode never mentioned any legal fines and P3 had only been closed for a day . . . before Leo cured her. But in the story for ”Astral Monkey”, Constance Burge had failed to bring up all of the Halliwells and Leo’s past transgressions. Instead, she decided to lay all of the blame on Williamson's shoulders. Prue and Phoebe did not even seem the worse for wear following Williamson's death at the end of the episode. As for Piper, she only felt guilty for not being able to save Williamson and for failing to respond to his letters in the first place. Not once did the episode’s script allow Piper to express any guilt for allowing her greed in ”Awakened” to set everything in motion.

For two episodes considered to among the best by the series’ fans, I find it interesting that both managed to fill me with disgust from its portrayals of the main characters. Even worse, the only character who ended up facing consequences from questionable choices happened to be one portrayed by a guest star. And I find it ironic that I have Constance Burge, and not the much maligned Brad Kern, to blame.

"CAPTAIN BLOOD" (1935) Photo Gallery

Here is a gallery featuring photos and a video clip from the 1935 swashbuckler classic - "CAPTAIN BLOOD". Directed by Michael Curtiz, it featured Errol Flynn's first starring role and his first movie with famous co-star, Olivia DeHavilland: 


"CAPTAIN BLOOD" (1935) Photo Gallery and Video Clip

"SYLVIA" (2003) Review

"SYLVIA" (2003) Review
I finally watched "SYLVIA", the 2003 biography on poet Sylvia Plath, on DVD. After all I have heard about the movie, I had expected to be disappointed by it. To be truthful, I found it quite interesting biopic that was especially enhanced by the leads' performances. But . . . "SYLVIA" was not a perfect film.

Set between the mid-1950s to the early 1960s, "SYLVIA" told the story of Plath's marriage to fellow poet, British-born Ted Hughes, their tumultuous relationship and her struggles to maintain a career. The movie's revelation of the Plath/Hughes courtship, followed by their marriage turned out to be very interesting and rather intense. "SYLVIA" also did an excellent job in re-capturing the literary and academic world in both the United States and Great Britain that Plath and Hughes interacted with during the 1950s and early 1960s.

I suspect that many had expected John Brownlow's screenplay to take sides in its portrayal of the couple's problems and eventual breakup. To Brownlow and director Christine Jeffs' credit, the movie avoided this route. There were no heroes/heroines and villains/villainesses in their story . . . just two people who had failed to create a successful marriage. "SYLVIA" revealed that Hughes' infidelity with married writer and poet, Assia Wevill, the critical indifference of the male-dominated literary world and her own bouts with depression made life difficult for Plath during her last years. At the same time, the movie made it clear that Hughes struggled to deal with a depressed and suicidal wife. In the end, the movie presented the possibility that both Plath and Hughes had contributed their breakup.

To be honest, I think that Gwyneth Paltrow and Daniel Craig's performances as Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes had more to do with the movie's main virtue than Jeffs' direction or Brownlow's script. director, Christine Jeffs or the screenwriter, John Brownlow. Also, the movie featured some first-rate performances from the supporting cast. All of them - Jared Harris as poet/literary critic Al Alvarez; Blythe Danner as Aurelia Plath, Sylvia's mother; Amira Casar as Wevill; and Michael Gambon as Teacher Thomas, a neighbor of Sylvia's; gave able support. But it is obvious that this movie belonged to Paltrow and Craig, who conveyed the intensity of the Plath/Hughes marriage with an honesty and rawness that I sometimes found hard to bear.

But even those two were not able to save the movie's last half hour from almost sinking into an abyss of unrelenting boredom. I suspect that Jeffs and Brownlow wanted to give moviegoers an in-depth look at Plath's emotional descent into suicide, following the break-up of her marriage to Hughes. But I wish they could have paced the movie's ending a little better than what had been shown in the finale. The movie's last half hour nearly dragged the story to a standstill.

Despite the last half hour, I would still recommend "SYLVIA". In the end, it turned out to be a pretty interesting look into the marriage of the two famous poets, thanks to director Christine Jeffs, John Brownlow's screenplay and a first-rate cast. But I believe that performances of both Gwyneth Paltrow and Daniel Craig proved to be the best aspects of the film.

"MAD MEN" RETROSPECT: (1.07) "Red in the Face"

"MAD MEN" RETROSPECT: (1.07) "Red in the Face"

Due to some sense of nostalgia, I decided to break out my "MAD MEN" Season One DVD set and watch an episode. The episode in question turned out to be the seventh one, (1.07) "Red in the Face". 

After watching "Red in the Face", it occurred to me that its main theme centered around some of the main characters' childish behavior. I say "some of the characters", because only a few managed to refrain from such behavior - Sterling Cooper's co-owner Bert Cooper; Office Manager Joan Holloway; and Helen Bishop, a divorcée that happens to be a neighbor of the Drapers. I do not recall Cooper behaving childishly during the series' last four seasons. Helen Bishop merely reacted as any neighbor would when faced with a situation regarding her nine year-old son and a neighbor. As for Joan, she had displayed her own brand of childishness (of the vindictive nature) in episodes before and after "Red in the Face". But in this episode, she managed to refrain herself.

I cannot deny that I found this episode entertaining. And I believe it was mainly due John Slattery's performance as Roger Sterling, Sterling-Cooper's other owner. In scene after scene, Slattery conveyed Roger's penchant for childishness - proposing an illicit weekend to Joan, resentment toward the female attention that Don Draper managed to attract at a Manhattan bar, making snipes at the younger man's background during an impromptu dinner with the Drapers, making sexual advances at Betty Draper, and gorging on a very unhealthy lunch. That is a lot for one episode. Roger's behavior served to convey a middle-aged man stuck in personal stagnation. Even worse, he has remained in this situation up to the latest season. And Slattery managed to convey these tragic aspects of Roger's character with his usual fine skills.

Jon Hamm fared just as well with another first-rate performance as the series' protagonist, Don Draper. In "Red in the Face", Hamm revealed Don's immature and bullying nature behind his usual smooth, charismatic and secretive personality. This was especially apparent in a scene that Hamm shared with January Jones, in which Don accused his wife Betty of flirting with Roger. And Don's less admirable nature was also apparent in the joke that he pulled on Roger in the episode's final scenes. Speaking of Betty, January Jones also did a top-notch job in those scenes with Hamm. She also gave an excellent performance in Betty's confrontation with Don, following the dinner with Roger; and her conversation with neighbor Francine about her desire to attract attention. I have noticed that most of the series' fans seemed to regard Betty as a child in a woman's body. Granted, Betty had her childish moments in the episode - especially during her confrontation with neighbor Helen Bishop at a local grocery store. But I have always harbored the opinion that she is no more or less childish than the other main characters. This episode seemed to prove it. One last performance that stood out came from Vincent Kartheiser as the young Accounts executive Pete Campbell. To this day, I do not understand why he is the only major cast member who has never received an acting nomination for an Emmy or Golden Globe. Because Kartheiser does such a terrific job as the ambiguous Pete. His complexity seemed apparent in "Red in the Face". In one scene, he tried to exchange a rather ugly wedding gift for something more dear to his heart - a rifle. His attempt to exchange the gift seemed to feature Pete as his most childish. Yet, he also seemed to be the only Sterling Cooper executive who understood the advertising value of John F. Kennedy's youthful persona during the 1960 Presidential election.

Earlier, I had commented on how screenwriter Bridget Bedard's use of childish behavior by some of the main characters as a major theme for "Red in the Face". I have noticed that once this behavior is apparent; Roger, Don, Betty and Pete are left humiliated or "red in the face" after being exposed. Betty's decision to give a lock of hair to Helen Bishop's nine year-old son in (1.04) "New Amsterdam" led to a confrontation between the two women at a grocery store and a slap delivered by Betty after being humiliated by Helen. If I had been Betty, I would have admitted that giving young Glen a lock of her hair was a mistake, before pointing out Glen's habit of entering a private bathroom already in use. And Pete's decision to trade the ugly-looking chip-and-dip for a rifle led to being berated over the telephone by his new wife, Trudy. Only a conversation with Peggy Olson, Don's secretary, about his fantasies as a hunter could alleviate his humiliation. During the Drapers' dinner party with Roger, the latter noted that Don's habit of slipping his "Gs" indicated a rural upbringing - a revelation that left Don feeling slightly humiliated. And after accusing Betty of flirting with Roger, she retaliated with a snide comment about his masculinity. Don tried to retaliate by calling her a child, but Betty's stoic lack of response only fed his humiliation even more. However, he did get even with Roger by setting up the latter with a cruel practical joke that involved a falsely inoperative elevator and a heavy lunch that included oysters and cheesecake. Although the joke left Don feeling smug and vindicated, I was left more convinced than ever of his penchant for childish behavior. Aside from feeling humiliated by a pair of young females' attention toward Don, Roger managed to coast through most of the episode without paying a price for his behavior. In the end, he suffered the biggest humiliation via his reaction to Don's joke - by vomiting in front of prospective clients.

"Red in the Face" featured many scenes that I found entertaining - especially the impromptu dinner party given by the Drapers for Roger Sterling. But if I must be honest, I did not find it particularly impressive. Although "Red in the Face" offered viewers a negative aspects of four of the main characters, I do not believe it did nothing to advance any of the stories that began at the beginning of the season. I must also add that Betty's confrontation with Helen Bishop seemed out of place in this episode. While watching it, I had the distinct impression that this scene, along with Betty and Francine's conversation, should have been added near the end of "New Amsterdam". By including it in "Red in the Face", it almost seemed out of place.

I could never regard "Red in the Face" as one of the best episodes of Season One or the series. But I cannot deny that thanks to performances by John Slattery, Jon Hamm, January Jones and Vincent Kartheiser, I found it entertaining.

"THE AVENGERS" (2012) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "THE AVENGERS", the new movie featuring Marvel Comics superheroes.  The movie was directed by Joss Whedon:

"THE AVENGERS" (2012) Photo Gallery