"THIRTEEN DAYS" (2000) ReviewIn 1991, Kevin Costner starred in "J.F.K.", Oliver Stone's Oscar nominated film that explored the death of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Nine years later, Kevin Costner returned to the land of this country's own "Camelot", in this docudrama about the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 from the viewpoint of President Kennedy and the men who served his Administration. "THIRTEEN DAYS" got its title from Robert F. Kennedy's 1969 posthumous memoirs about the incident. Yet, David Self's screenplay is actually based upon Philip D. Zelikow's 1997 book, "The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis". "THIRTEEN DAYS" began in early October 1962, when the Kennedy Administration receive U-2 surveillance photos revealing nuclear missiles in Cuba that were placed by the Soviet Union. Because these missiles have the capability to wipe out most of the Eastern and Southern United States if operational, President John F. Kennedy and his advisers are forced to find a way to prevent their operational status. Also, Kennedy's authority is challenged by top civilian and military advisers like Chief of Staff U.S. Air Force General Curtis LeMay and former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, who wanted the President to display more obvious signs of military strength in order to scare the Soviets in to removing the missiles. Most of the interactions between Kennedy and his men are witnessed by Kenneth O'Donnell, a presidential adviser and close school friend of Attorney General Robert Kennedy.There have been complaints that "THIRTEEN DAYS" is not a completely accurate portrayal of the Cuban Missile Crisis. And that the Kenny O"Donnell character, portrayed by star Kevin Costner, was unnecessarily prominent in this film. I do not know if the last complaint is relevant. After all, O'Donnell was one of Kennedy's advisers during the crisis. But since Costner was the star of the movie and one of the producers, perhaps there is some minor cause for complaint. As for any historical inaccuracy . . . this is a movie adaptation of history. People should realize that complete historical accuracy is extremely rare in fictional adaptations - not only in Hollywood movies and television, but also in productions outside of the country, novels, plays and even paintings.Were there any aspects of "THIRTEEN DAYS" that I found . . . uh, annoying or off putting? Well, Kevin Costner's attempt at a Boston accent was pretty terrible. And if I must be frank, there was nothing exceptional about Roger Donaldson's direction. I am not stating that he did a poor job directing the film. On the contrary, he did a solid job. But there were moments when I felt I was watching a TV movie-of-the-week, instead of a major motion picture - especially in one of the final shots that revealed the President's advisers discussing policy in Vietnam, while Kennedy prepared to compose a letter to the relatives of a downed U-2 pilot.Other than Costner's Boston accent and Donaldson's less than spectacular direction, I have no real complaints about the movie. In fact, I enjoyed it very much when I first saw it, twelve years ago. And I still enjoyed it very much when I recently viewed my DVD copy of it. "THIRTEEN DAYS" is a solid, yet tense and fascinating look into the Missile Crisis from the viewpoints of President Kennedy and his advisers. Before I first saw this film, I had no idea that Kennedy faced so much trouble from the military elite and the more conservative advisers of his administration. I was especially surprised by the latter, considering that the President himself was not only a borderline conservative, but also harbored hawkish views against Communism.Although I would never view Donaldson as one of the finest directors around, I must admit that I was more than impressed by his ability to energized a story that could have easily been bogged down by a series of scenes featuring nothing but discussions and meetings. Instead, both Donaldson and Self energized "THIRTEEN DAYS" with a good number of scenes that featured tension between characters, emotional confrontations and two action sequences that featured military flights over Cuba. Among my favorite scenes are Kennedy's confrontation with Curtis Le May, his angry outburst over Le May's decision to engage in nuclear testing as a scare tactic against the Soviets; the flight of two U.S. Navy pilots over Cuban airspace; Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's confrontation with U.S. Navy Admiral George Anderson; and especially U.N. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson's confrontation with the Soviet U.N. Ambassador Valerian Zorin.However, Donaldson's direction and Self's script were not the only aspects of "THIRTEEN DAYS" that prevented the movie from becoming a dull history lesson. The cast, led by Kevin Costner, Bruce Greenwood and Steven Culp, provided some superb performances that helped keep the story alive. I am not going to deny that I found Costner's Boston accent cringe worthy. One would have to be deaf not to notice. But a bad accent does not mean a bad performance. And Costner proved to be a very lively and intense Kenny O'Donnell, whose close relationship and loyalty to the Kennedys allowed him to be brutally frank to them, when others could not get away with such frankness. Steven Culp was equally intense as Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who seemed to inject energy into every scene in which he appeared. But the one performance that really impressed me came from Bruce Greenwood's portrayal of the 35th President of the United States. Instead of portraying Kennedy as some one-note political icon or womanizing bad boy, Greenwood portrayed Kennedy as a intelligent, multi-faceted politician struggling to prevent the outbreak of a third world war, while keeping his high-ranking military officers in check. Personally, I feel that Greenwood may have given the best portrayal of Kennedy I have yet to see on either the movie or television screen. The movie also featured some first-rate and memorable supporting performances from the likes of Dylan Baker (as Robert McNamara), Michael Fairman (as Adlai Stevenson), Lucinda Jenney (as Helen O'Donnell), Kevin Conway (as Curtis LeMay), Madison Mason (as Admiral Anderson), Len Cariou (as Dean Acheson), Bill Smitrovich (as General Maxwell Taylor), and especially Karen Ludwig and Christopher Lawson as the sharp-tongued White House operator Margaret and the sardonic U.S. Navy pilot Commander William Ecker.I want to say something about the film's production designs and setting. If there is one aspect of "THIRTEEN DAYS" that I truly appreciated how J. Dennis Washington's production designs re-created the year 1962. And he did so without any over-the-top attempt at early 1960s style. Unlike some productions set during this period, "THIRTEEN DAYS" did not scream "THIS IS THE SIXTIES!". Washington's production designs, along with Denise Pizzini's set decorations and Isis Mussenden's costume designs presented the early 1960s with an elegance and accuracy I found very satisfying. Their work was ably assisted by Andrzej Bartkowiak's photography. Bartkowiak's work also supported Conrad Buff IV's excellent editing, which prevented the film from becoming a dull period piece.I do not know what else I could say about "THIRTEEN DAYS". I do not claim that it is a perfect film. I found Roger Donaldson's direction excellent, but not particularly dazzling or outstanding. And yes, Kevin Costner's otherwise first-rate performance was marred by a bad Boston accent. But he, along with an excellent Steven Culp, a superb Bruce Greenwood, a solid cast and a satisfying script by David Self made "THIRTEEN DAYS" an interesting and well made account of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
"THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL" (1982) Review
I suspect that many fans of the DC Comics character "Batman" and the "Zorro" character would be nonplussed at the idea that a novel written by a Hungary-born aristocrat had served as an inspiration for their creations. Yet, many believe that Baroness Emmuska Orczy de Orczi's 1905 novel, "The Scarlet Pimpernel" provided Western literature with its first "hero with a secret identity", Sir Percy Blakeney aka the Scarlet Pimpernel.
There have been at least nineteen stage, movie or television adaptations of Orczy's novel. Some consider the 1934 movie adaptation with Leslie Howard, Merle Oberon and Raymond Massey as the most definitive adaptation. However, there are others who are more inclined to bestow that honor on the 1982 television adaptation with Anthony Andrews, Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen. I have seen both versions and if I must be honest, I am inclined to agree with those who prefer the 1982 television movie.
"THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL" - namely its 1982 re-incarnation - is based upon the 1905 novel and its 1913 sequel, "Eldorado". Set during the early period of the French Revolution, a masked man and his band of followers rescues French aristocrats from becoming victims of the Reign of Terror under France's new leader, Maximilien de Robespierre. The man behind the Scarlet Pimpernel's mask - or disguises - is a foppish English baronet named Sir Percy Blakeney. For reasons never explained in the movie, Sir Percy has managed to gather a group of upper-class friends to assist him in smuggling French aristocrats out of France and sending them to the safety of England. During a visit to France, Sir Percy meets a young French government aide and the latter's actress sister, Armand and Marguerite St. Just. He eventually befriends the brother and courts the sister.
Sir Percy also becomes aware of Armand's superior and Marguerite's friend, Robespierre's agent Paul Chauvelin. Angered over Marguerite's marriage to Sir Percy, Chauvelin has the Marquis de St. Cyr - an old enemy of Armand's - executed in her name. After being sent to England to learn the identity of the Scarlet Pimpernel, Chauvelin discovers that Armand has become part of the vigilante's band. He blackmails Marguerite - now Lady Blakeney - into learning the identity the identity of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Meanwhile, the Blakeney marriage has chilled, due to the news of the Marquis de St. Cyr's execution and Marguerite's alleged connection. But a chance for a marital reconciliation materializes for Marguerite, when she discovers the Scarlet Pimpernel's true identity.
Thirty years have passed since CBS first aired "THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL". In many ways, it has not lost its bite. Thanks to Tony Curtis' production designs, late 18th century England and France (England and Wales in reality) glowed with elegance and style. Not even the questionable transfer of the film to DVD could completely erode the movie's beauty. The movie's visual style was aided by Carolyn Scott's set decorations, Dennis C. Lewiston's sharp and colorful photography, and especially Phyllis Dalton's gorgeous costume designs, as shown in the following photographs:
I feel that screenwriter William Bast made the very wise choice of adapting Baroness Orczy's two novels about the Scarlet Pimpernel. In doing so, he managed to create a very clear and concise tale filled with plenty of drama and action. He also did an excellent job in mapping out the development of the story's main characters - especially Sir Percy Blakeney, Marguerite St. Just, Paul Chauvelin and Armand St. Just. I was especially impressed by his handling of Sir Percy and Marguerite's relationship - before and after marriage. Sir Percy's easy willingness to believe the worst about his bride provided a few chinks into Sir Percy's character, which could have easily morphed into a too perfect personality. More importantly, Bast's script gave Paul Chauvelin's character more depth by revealing the latter's feelings for Marguerite and jealousy over her marriage to Sir Percy. Bast's re-creation of the early years of the French Revolution and Reign of Terror struck me as well done. However, I wish he had not faithfully adapted Orczy's decision to allow the Scarlet Pimpernel and his men to rescue the Daupin of France (heir apparent to the French throne), Louis-Charles (who became Louis XVII, upon his father's death). In reality, Louis-Charles died in prison from tuberculosis and ill treatment at the age of ten. Surely, Bast could have created someone else important for the Scarlet Pimpernel to rescue.
"THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL" received a few Emmy nominations. But they were for technical awards - Costume Designs for Phyllis Dalton, Art Direction for Tony Curtis and even one for Outstanding Drama Special for producers David Conroy and Mark Shelmerdine. And yet . . . there were no nominations for Clive Donner and his lively direction, and no nominations for the cast. I am especially astounded by the lack of nominations for Anthony Andrews, Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen. In fact, I find this criminal. All three gave superb performances as Sir Percy Blakeney; Marguerite, Lady Blakeney; and Paul Chauvelin respectively. Andrews was all over the map in his portrayal of the fop by day/hero by night Sir Percy. And yet, it was a very controlled and disciplined performance. Jane Seymour did a beautiful job of re-creating the intelligent, yet emotional Marguerite. At times, she seemed to be the heart and soul of the story. This was the first production in which I became aware of Ian McKellen as an actor and after his performance as Paul Chauvelin, I never forgot him. Not only was his portrayal of Chauvelin's villainy subtle, but also filled with deep pathos over his feelings for Marguerite Blakeney. He also had the luck to utter one of my favorite lines in the movie in the face of his character's defeat:
"Oh, the English, and their STU-U-U-UPID sense of fair play!"
The movie also featured some first-rate performances by the supporting cast. Malcolm Jamieson did an excellent job in portraying Marguerite's older brother, Armand. I was also impressed by Ann Firbank, who was first-rate as the embittered Countess de Tournay; James Villiers as the opportunistic Baron de Batz; Tracey Childs as the lovesick Suzanne de Tournay; and Christopher Villiers as Sir Percy's most stalwart assistant, Lord Anthony Dewhurst. Julian Fellowes made a very colorful and entertaining Prince of Wales. And Richard Morant proved to be even more subtle and sinister than McKellen's Chauvelin as Maximilien de Robespierre.
After my latest viewing of "THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL", I found myself surprisingly less supportive of the Scarlet Pimpernel's efforts than I used to be. Perhaps I have not only become more older, but even less enthusiastic about the aristocratic elite. It was then I realized that despite the presence of Marguerite and Armand St. Just, "THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL" is based on two novels written by an aristocrat, with views that were probably as liberal as Barry Goldwater. Oh well. I still managed to garner a good deal of entertainment from a movie that has held up remarkable well after thirty years, thanks to some lively direction by Clive Donner, a first-rate script by William Bast and superb performances by the likes of Anthony Andrews, Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen.
Below is an article I had written during the middle of Season One for ABC's "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.":"AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.": THE LAST STAND AGAINST MEDIOCRITY
The age of serial drama or adventure is over. It is over. I came to this conclusion after learning the dismal ratings for the last episode of ABC's "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." called (1.10) "The Bridge". And ironically, my statement is not a criticism directed at the series or its latest episode. I recently learned that the ratings for "The Bridge" had dropped considerably. Many fans would see this as a sign of the show's not-so-sensational quality. I realize that "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." is not flawless. There is no such thing as a flawless show. But it has the potential to become a first-rate one, as the quality of its writing grow with time. But judging from the reaction to the show from the past two months, I can clearly see that American television viewers and critics now lack the patience to deal with a serial drama. They will not allow shows like "S.H.I.E.L.D." to develop at a steady pace. They want instant perfection right off the bat.I blame televisions series like "LOST", the new "BATTLESTAR: GALACTICA", and "ONCE UPON A TIME". All three shows gave television viewers an excellent First Season that seemed to blow their minds. And thanks to shows like the one I had just listed, an excellent first season is what many viewers have come to expect from a TV show in the sci-fi/fantasy genre. Superb shows like "BABYLON 5", "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER" and "ANGEL" did not have perfect first seasons. First first seasons were decent, but flawed. But in time, all three developed into excellent shows by their second and third seasons. And this is why I consider them among the finest series in television series. I am also reminded of cancelled shows like "FLASHFORWARD" and "THE EVENT". I might as well be frank. The first half of their single seasons never struck me as exceptional or impressive. But both shows managed to develop in quality by the end of their seasons. And both shows promised great potential, as well. But the respective networks refused to give them a chance and cancelled them, instead of giving them a second season. Considering that the writing for television series like "BABYLON 5" and "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER" managed to slowly develop over time, I now realize that I can never consider shows like "LOST" and "ONCE UPON A TIME" among the best in television history. Sure, they were entertaining and revealed flashes of brilliant writing. Unfortunately, I believe that the writing for "LOST" flip-flopped in quality during its remaining five seasons. Despite some first-rate story arcs and plot twists over the years, it never reached the same level of quality that it had enjoyed during its first season. Many fans were dazzled by "ONCE UPON A TIME" during its first season. But the series is now in the midst of its third season. And I feel that eventually, it will suffer the same fate of inconsistent quality as "LOST" did.The first season of "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." reminds of those first seasons for shows like "BABYLON 5" and "BUFFY". Like the two now defunct shows, the first season for "S.H.I.E.L.D." is obviously flawed. But I feel that it has potential, especially in the story line regarding the agency's battle with an organization called Centipede. When the series first began, I could barely stand characters like Grant Ward, Leo Fitz and Jemma Simmons. I found the former aggressively bland, and the other two rather annoying and out of place. The series has just finished airing its tenth episode and I have grown to appreciate all three characters. This is due to their fleshing out as interesting characters, instead of remaining mere cliches. For me, this is a sign of why I like the production styles of television producer/writers like Joss Whedon and J. Michael Straczynski. They do not try to wow the audience off the bat with a spectacular premiere or first season. Both Whedon and Straczynski, and other show creators like them, are willing to allow their stories and characters to develop with time . . . like true storytellers. But today's television viewers do not seem to appreciate real storytelling. They do not appreciate a steady development of story and characters. They want to be dazzled right off the bat. And the creators of shows like "LOST" and "ONCE UPON A TIME" are willing to feed them dazzling premieres to automatically draw in viewers. Because of this new style of storytelling and lack of audience patience, I fear that "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." will not last beyond a first season. And if it does last, I fear that the networks might force Whedon and his brother, Jed Whedon will transform the series into an episodic one that allow guest starring costume heroes to push the main characters into a back seat.Oh well. There is nothing I can do about it. In fact, all I can do is sit back and speculate on the future of "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.". If it ends up cancelled by the end of the season or is transformed into episodic television; the show's fate will become another step down in the quality of television writing - especially for the sci-fi/fantasy genre. I fear culture is in serious danger of going to the dogs.
