"ANGELS AND INSECTS" (1995) ReviewI never thought I would come around to writing this review. I have seen the 1995 movie, "ANGELS AND INSECTS" a good number of times during the past five years. Yet, I never got around to posting a review of this movie, until recently. Why? I have not the foggiest idea. Nor do I have any idea why I had finally decided to write that review. Based upon A.S. Byatt's 1992 novella called "Morpho Eugenia", "ANGELS AND INSECTS" tells the story of a poor naturalist named William Adamson, who returns home to Victorian England after having spent years studying the natural wildlife - especially insects - in the Amazon Basin. Despite losing all of his possession during a shipwreck, he manages to befriend a baronet named Sir Harald Alabaster, who is also an amateur insect collector and botanist. The latter hires William to catalog his specimen collection and assist his younger children's governess the natural sciences.William eventually falls for Sir Harald's oldest daughter, Eugenia, who is mourning the suicide of her fiance. Both of them eventually become emotionally involved and decide to marry. Much to William's surprise, both Sir Harald and Lady Alabaster seems encouraging of the match. The only member of the Alabaster family who is against their upcoming wedding is Sir Harald's eldest child, the arrogant Edgar. Not only is the latter close to Eugenia, he believes that William is unworthy of his sister's hand, due to having a working-class background. The marriage between William and Eugenia seemed to be a happily lustful one that produces five children (among them two sets of twins). But Eugenia's hot and cold control over their sex life, a constantly hostile Edgar, William's growing friendship to Lady Alabaster's companion Matilda "Matty" Crompton, and William's own disenchantment over his role as Sir Harald's official assistant brings their marriage to a head after several years of marriage.The film adaptation of Byatt's novella seemed to be the brainchild of Philip and Belinda Haas. Both worked on the film's screenplay, while Philip also served as the film's director and Belinda served as both co-producer (there are three others) and film editor. From my perusal of many period drama blogs, I get the feeling that "ANGELS AND INSECTS" is not very popular with many of the genre's fans. On the other hand, many literary and film critics seemed to have a very high regard for it. Despite my love for the usual romantic costume drama, I must admit that my opinions of the 1995 film falls with the latter group. It is simply too well made and too fascinating for me to overlook. There were times I could not tell whether "ANGELS AND INSECTS" is some look at the age of Victorian science exploration, the close study of an upper-class 19th century family, or a lurid tale morality. Now that I realize it, the movie is probably an amalgamation of them all, wrapped around this view on Darwinism and breeding - in regard to both the insect world and humans. The topic of breeding seemed to seep into the screenplay in many scenes. Some of them come to mind - Sir Harald and Edgar's debate on the breeding of horses and other animals, William and Eugenia's second encounter with moths in the manor's conservatory, Sir Harald's despairing rant on his declining usefulness within his own household, the reason behind Edgar's hostility toward William, and the visual comparisons between the bees and the inhabitants of the Alabaster estate, with Lady Alabaster serving as some metaphor for an aging Queen bee on her last legs. The metaphor of the Queen bee is extended further into Eugenia. Not only does she assume her mother's role as mistress of the house following the latter's death; but like Lady Alabaster before her, gives birth to a growing number of blond-haired children. If a person has never seen "ANGELS AND INSECTS" before, he or she could follow both the script and cinematographer Bernard Zitzerman's shots carefully to detect the clues that hint the cloistered degeneracy that seemed to unconsciously permeate the Alabaster household.I cannot deny that "ANGELS AND INSECTS" is a gorgeous film to behold. Philip and Belinda Haas, along with the film's other producers did an excellent job in creating a visually stunning film with a bold and colorful look. Cinematographer Bernard Zitzermann, along with production designer Jennifer Kernke and Alison Riva's art direction provided great contributions to the film's visual style. But in my opinion, Paul Brown's Academy Award nominated costume designs not only conveyed the film's colorful visual style more than anything else, but also properly reflected the fashion styles of the early 1860s for women - including the growing penchant for deep, solid colors - as shown below:
Adding to the movie's rich atmosphere was Alexander Balanescu's memorable score. I thought the composer did an excellent job of reflecting both the movie's elegant setting and its passionate, yet lurid story.As much as I enjoyed and admired "ANGELS AND INSECTS", I believe it had its flaws. I understand why Philip Haas had opened the movie with shots of William Adamson socializing with inhabitants of the Amazonian jungle, juxtaposing with the Alabaster ball given in his honor. Is it just me or did Haas use white - probably British - actors to portray Amazonian natives? I hope I am wrong, but I fear otherwise. I also feel that the movie was marred by a slow pacing that nearly crawled to a halt. I cannot help but wonder if Haas felt insecure by the project he and his wife had embarked upon, considering that "ANGELS AND INSECTS" was his second motion picture after many years as a documentarian. Or perhaps he got caught up in his own roots as a documentarian, due to his heavy emphasis on the natural world being studied by William, Matty and the younger Alabaster children. In a way, I have to thank Balanescu's score for keeping me awake during those scenes that seemed to drag.I cannot deny that the movie featured some top-notch and subtle performances. Mark Rylance, who has a sterling reputation as a stage actor, gave such a quiet and superb performance that I hope his reputation has extended to film. Kristin Scott-Thomas was equally superb as the Matty Crompton, Lady Alabaster's very observant companion, who shared William's interests in natural sciences. I have no idea what reputation Patsy Kensit has as an actress, but I certainly believe she gave an excellent performance as William's beautiful and aristocratic wife, Eugenia Alabaster, whose hot and cold attitude toward her husband kept him puzzled. Jeremy Kemp gave one of his more complex andentertaining performances as William's father-in-law, the amateur scientist Sir Harald Alabaster. Douglas Henshall had a difficult job in portraying the bullying Edgar Alabaster, who seemed to view William as both beneath contempt and something of a threat to his views of the world. The movie also featured solid performances from the likes of Anna Massey, Saskia Wickham, Chris Larkin, Clare Redman and Annette Badlands.Some fans of period drama might be taken aback by the graphic sexuality featured in the film, along with the story's lurid topic. And director Philip Haas' pacing might be a bit hard to accept. But I feel that enduring all of this might be worth the trouble. Philip and Belinda Haas, along with the crew and a cast led by Mark Rylance, Kristin Scott-Thomas and Patsy Kensit did an excellent in re-creating A.S. Byatt's tale on the screen, and creating a first-rate movie in the end.
"LOST" RETROSPECT: (2.04) "Everybody Hates Hugo"Unless I am mistaken, Season Two of "LOST" is not very popular with the show's fans. This season expanded on the Hatch (DHARMA Swan Station) subplot that was touched upon in the second half of Season One. This season introduced a tiresome running joke surrounding the Michael Dawson character. And it also featured the introduction of the survivors from Oceanic 815's Tail Section, which included the unpopular character, Ana-Lucia Cortez. In some way, the fourth episode - (2.04) "Everybody Hates Hugo" - seemed to be some kind of manifestation of Season Two. Aside from the joke regarding Michael Dawson, "Everybody Hates Hugo" touched upon most of the topics I brought up in the previous paragraph. In the previous episode, (2.03) "Orientation", the survivors of Michael's raft (Michael, James "Sawyer" Ford and Jin Kwon) were captured by a mysterious group of people upon their return to the Island. "Everybody Hates Hugo" focused on their incarceration inside a deep pit. Before Sawyer could finish plotting their escape, the mysterious group revealed to be survivors from Oceanic 815's Tail Section. Despite some hostile conflict between Sawyer and the Tailies' leader, Ana-Lucia Cortez, all agree it would be best to head for the Fuselage passengers' beach camp. Claire Littleton stumble across the bottle of messages from Michael's raft on the beach. She and several survivors worry over the fate of Michael, his son Walt Lloyd, Jin and Sawyer. Following the tiresome three-episode introduction of the Swan Station's interiors, Jack and Sayid explore the hatch. They also order a very reluctant Hugo "Hurley" Reyes to ration the food found inside the station. The episode's flashbacks reveal the consequences of Hurley winning the lottery . . . and his reasons for wanting to be in charge of food distribution on the Island.I have to be frank. The episode's main subplot involving Hurley's job in the Hatch and his flashback did nothing for me. I found it boring. Well . . . I almost found it boring. Hurley's reasons behind his reluctance to win the lottery and be in charge of the Losties' food distribution clarified an aspect of his personality that I have always suspected. Despite some flashes of wisdom and common sense, Hurley is at heart a man-child who is reluctant to grow up. Unfortunately, this is an aspect of Hurley's character I have never admired. In fact, I found it tiresome . . . over and over again. And I never could understand why fans have never noticed in past viewings. One could point out that Hurley became more mature as the series progressed. I find that hard to believe, considering the circumstances behind Hurley's eventual fate. Hurley's minor quarrel with Charlie over the secrecy of the Swan Station struck me as infantile. It did not help that Charlie's constant rants about betrayal really irritated me. But I must admit that both Jorge Garcia and Dominic Monaghan gave first-rate performances. The only thing about this subplot that I found entertaining was Hurley's interaction with Rose Nadler, portrayed by the very talented L. Scott Caldwell.The second subplot regarding Jack and Sayid's exploration of the Swan Station only seemed a step above the main subplot. The only reason I found it slightly more interesting was due to the mystery surrounding the Hatch. It seemed like a more mature subplot than one about Hurley's man-child issues. That even includes Jack's accidental encounter with a nearly nude Kate Austen, after she had finished taking a shower. What interested me was Sayid's discovery of an electromagnetic energy within the Hatch's walls. This discovery will end up being fully revealed by mid-to-late Season Five. The third subplot involved Claire's discovery of the bottle of messages from the raft. This subplot struck me as irrelevant . . . period. Aside from giving Shannon Rutherford a moment to see a wet manifestation of Walt - an event that will have greater impact in a future episode - this subplot did nothing to drive the series' main narrative forward. Instead, it involved some of the female survivors speculating on the fates of the raft's passengers. And nothing more.It was the final subplot regarding Michael, Jin and Sawyer's experiences with the Tailies that really injected energy into the episode. It was not so much the mystery surrounding the raft survivors' captors that made "Everybody Hates Hugo"so interesting to me. The three men discovered they had been captured by survivors from the Tail Section before halfway into the episode. But the psychological conflict between the more familiar characters and the newcomers crackled with a lot of energy that made me take notice. I especially found the conflict between Sawyer and Ana-Lucia, thanks to Josh Holloway and Michelle Rodriguez's intense performances very entertaining. I realized that a good number of "LOST" fans disliked the Ana-Lucia Cortez character ever since this episode aired during the fall of 2005. I must admit that I had a different reaction. The powerhouse punch that Ana-Lucia delivered to Sawyer in "Orientation" had already thrilled me. Her continuing abuse of the always annoying Sawyer filled me with even more glee. I realize that most fans would probably be put off by my comments. But I do not care. I like Sawyer, but he was a real pain in the ass in this particular episode. At least to me."Everybody Hates Hugo" ended both on a mysterious and uplifting note. The Tailies led the raft survivors to another hatch that had been originally constructed by the DHARMA Initiative. Apparently, they had been using it as refuge from the jungle and the Others inside the nearly abandoned Arrow Station. So much for the mystery. What did I find uplifting about the episode? Certainly not the cheesy monologue featuring Hurley's generous distribution of the food from the Swan Station. It was that moment when one of the Tail Section survivors approached the raft survivors and asked if they knew Rose. Thanks to a poignant performance by Sam Anderson, I nearly cried when he revealed himself to be Rose's missing husband, Bernard. Great way to end an otherwise mediocre episode, "LOST"!
"THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" (1956) ReviewIt has been a long time since I saw Cecil B. DeMille's 1956 movie, "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS". A long time. When I was young, my family and I used to watch the film on television, every Easter Sunday. By the time I reached my early to mid-twenties, I stopped watching the movie. I spent the next decade or two deliberately ignoring "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS". One, I had pretty much burned out on the 1956 film by then. Two, I had very little interest in Biblical films. I still do to a certain extent. And three, my opinion of DeMille's movie had pretty much sunk over the years. By the time, I reached my thirties, I came to the conclusion that it was an overrated film. So . . . what led me to change my mind for a recent viewing of "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS"? To be honest, the recent release Ridley Scott's Biblical film, "EXODUS: GODS AND KINGS". Both the 1956 and 2014 movies pretty much told the same story - the exodus of Hebrews from Egypt, under the leadership of Moses. I eventually plan to watch "EXODUS: GODS AND KINGS". But out of curiosity, I decided to watch "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" first.Anyone who has seen or heard about "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" knows the story. Pharaoh Rameses I of Egypt orders the death of all firstborn Hebrew males upon hearing a prophecy in which a "Deliverer" will lead Egypt's Hebrew slaves to freedom. A Hebrew woman named Yochabel saves her infant son by setting him adrift in a basket on the Nile River. The Pharaoh's daughter Bithiah, who recently lost her husband, finds the child and adopts him as her own, despite the protests of her servant Memnet. Prince Moses grows up to be a part of Egypt's royal family. He becomes a successful general who wins a war against Ethopia and forms an alliance with the country. Moses falls in love with loves Nefretiri, who is the throne princess and must be betrothed to the next Pharaoh. He also becomes in charge of constructing a new city in honor of Pharoah Sethi's jubilee. But when his rival for the throne and Nefretiri's hand, Prince Rameses accuses him of being the Hebrew slaves' "Deliverer" after he institute reforms in regard to the slaves' treatment. Moses responses by showing the completed city and claiming that he wanted the slaves more productive in order to finish the project. Despite being on top of the world following his construction of the new city, Moses' privileged world is threatened when Nefretiri learns from a royal slave named Memnet that Moses is the son of a Hebrew slave.I now realized why I had stopped watching "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" for so many years. I had simply burned out on the film. My refusal to watch the movie for so many years had nothing to do with its quality. I am not saying that "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" is one of the best films ever made. Not by a long shot. "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS", quite deservedly, is known for its over-the-top melodrama, bombastic style and preachiness. But the one thing the movie is known for it is the turgid dialogue that seemed to permeate the film. I cannot help but wonder if the screenwriters had disliked actress Anne Baxter or her character, Nefretiri. After hearing her spout lines like - "You will be king of Egypt and I will be your footstool!" - throughout the entire film, I am beginning to suspect that I may be right. Even the other performers - including Charlton Heston, Yul Brenner, Yvonne DeCarlo, Edward G. Robinson, Vincent Price, Debra Paget, John Derek, Judith Anderson, John Carradine, Martha Scott, Nina Foch and Sir Cedric Hardwicke - spoke their lines with a ponderous style that left me wondering if this movie had been shot at a slower speed. And to think, movie fans had to endure this ponderous style and turgid dialogue for slightly over three-and-a-half hours. Whew!However, my re-watch of "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" made me appreciate it a lot more. I appreciated the epic feel of DeMille's movie, as he guided audiences into Moses' life - from Moses' birth to his glory years as an Egyptian prince, to his years as an outcast and shepherd and finally to his years as a prophet and conflicts with Rameses - all in great detail and glorious Technicolor. DeMille even took the time to delve into the romance of supporting characters like Joshua and Lilia. There are some epic films that can bore me senseless with a ponderous style and equally ponderous pacing. Yes, the dialogue for "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" can be quite ponderous. But I cannot say the same for DeMille's pacing. I found his direction well-paced, despite the movie's 220 minutes running time. One of the aspects of "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" that I found truly impressive was Loyal Griggs' cinematography for the film. Shot in glorious Technicolor, Griggs' Oscar nominated photography left me breathless, especially while viewing scenes such as those shown below:
I was also impressed by other technical aspects of the film. That last scene, which featured the parting of the Red Seas, led to an Academy Award for John P. Fulton, who had created the movie's special effects. That scene hold up pretty damn well after 59 years. "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" earned Oscar nominations for Edith Head's colorful costume designs, Anne Bauchens' film editing, Sam Comer and Ray Noyer's set decorations; and for art directors Hal Pereira, Walter H. Tyler, and Albert Nozaki.What can I say about the movie's performances? Despite the ponderous dialogue, the performances seemed to hold up . . . okay. Charlton Heston earned a Golden Globe nomination for his portrayal of Moses. Granted, Heston projected a strong presence in his performance. But honestly . . . I would not regard Moses as one of his greatest performances. I merely found it solid. I was a little more impressed by Yul Brenner's portrayal of Ramses. He won the Best Actor National Board Review Award for his performance. Then again, Ramses proved to be a more complex and ambiguous character than Moses. As much as I liked Brenner's performance, it did not exactly blow my mind. Anne Baxter, who was already an Oscar winner by the time she did "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS", was saddled with some of the movie's worst dialogue. And there was nothing she could do to overcome the bad dialogue . . . well, except in two particular scenes. One of those scenes featured Nefretiri's discovery of Moses' origin as a Hebrew slave. And the other featured her character's angry goading of Ramses to take action against the Hebrews, following their son's death.I read that Paramount had submitted Yvonne De Carlo, John Derek, and Debra Paget as possible nominees for a supporting Academy Award. All gave pretty good performances; especially Yvonne De Carlo, who portrayed Moses' wife Sephora, and Debra Paget, who portrayed Lilia, the slave woman who seemed doomed to attract the attention from the wrong kind of men. But none of them received any acting nominations for their work. There were other solid performances from the likes of Judith Anderson, Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Nina Foch, John Carradine, Martha Scott, Henry Wilcoxon and Woody Strode. But two particular performances really caught my attention. Ironically, they were portrayed by Vincent Price and Edward G. Robinson, who portrayed characters that proved to be the bane of Lilia's life. Both gave interesting performances as two very oily men who use Lilia as their personal bed warmer - Price as the well-born Egyptian architect Baka and Robinson as the ambitious Hebrew overseer Dathan, who later proves to be a thorn in Moses' side. "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" proved to be the last film directed by Cecil B. DeMille to be seen in movie theaters. The last in a career that by 1956, had spanned forty-two years. The director passed away over two years following the movie's release. Frankly, "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" struck me as a nice high note for DeMille to end his career. Yes, one has to endure the extremely long running time, occasional bouts of over-the-top drama and ponderous dialogue. But the movie's visual style, first-rate story, excellent direction in the hands of a legend like DeMille and solid performances from a cast led by Charlton Heston; makes this Hollywood classic worth watching over and over again.
"CONSEQUENCES OF LUST"All of Jane Austen's completed novels were first published during the Regency decade between 1810 and 1819, leaving present-day fans to celebrate the 200th anniversaries of each novel during this decade (2010-2019). Among those novels are "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE", now celebrating its bicentennial anniversary and "MANSFIELD PARK", which will be doing the same next year. "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" told the story of five daughters of an English landowner named Mr. Bennet, whose wife is desperate to find husbands for them all. The novel was written from the viewpoint of Mr. Bennet's second daughter, Elizabeth; and she becomes engaged in a stormy relationship with a very wealthy landowner named Fitzwilliam Darcy. Elizabeth and her sisters face a major social setback when the youngest sibling, Lydia Bennet, foolishly runs off with a militia officer named George Wickham during a visit to Brighton. Wickham turns out to be the son of the Darcy family's late estate steward.Published a year after "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE", "MANSFIELD PARK" told the story of a young English girl named Fanny Price, who is sent to live with her wealthy relations at an estate called Mansfield Park. During her first ten years with the Bertram family, Fanny falls in love with her kind cousin, Edmund. Not long after her eighteenth birthday, the Bertram family become acquainted with a brother-and-sister pair named Henry and Mary Crawford. Edmund ends up falling in love with Mary, while Henry flirts with Edmund's two sisters - Maria and Julia. Eventually, Henry falls for Fanny. But due to her love for Edmund, she rejects his offers of marriage. And Henry responds by running off with one of Fanny's cousins - namely the newly married Maria Bertram Rushworth - with devastating consequences. The Lydia Bennet/George Wickham relationship and the Maria Bertram Rushworth/Henry Crawford relationship shared many similiarities. Both featured feelings of lust between the romantic pairs. However in Maria's case, I suspect she may have felt some love for Henry. The so-called "elopements" in both novels threatened to drag the families concerned into scandal. And the men in both relationships possessed reputations for skillful seduction and a penchant for mindless flirtations. But there are differences. Lydia Bennet was an unmarried girl of sixteen years old. Maria Bertram Rushworth was a married young woman in her early twenties during her disasterous affair with Henry Crawford. Two, George Wickham possessed an inability for genuine love and a mercenary's heart for money. Henry Crawford, despite his flaws, displayed a capability for genuine love; and possessed enough money to not even care about marrying an heiress. Thanks to Fitzwilliam Darcy's own feelings for Elizabeth Bennet; he searched for the missing Lydia and Wickham, paid off the latter's debts and arranged for the pair's wedding and Wickham's commission into another regiment. The Bennet family expressed relief over Lydia's marriage and Elizabeth expressed gratitude toward Mr. Darcy for solving their family problem.Matters turned out differently over the Maria Rushworth/Henry Crawford affair. Determined to save the reputations of her family and the Bertrams, Mary Crawford suggested a similar vein of action to the Bertram family. She suggested that her brother Henry marry Maria, following the latter's divorce from Mr. Rushworth. Mary's plans never had a chance, due to Henry's refusal to marry Maria. Even worse, Edmund Bertram expressed outrage over Mary's plans and broke their engagement before marrying Fanny. And Sir Thomas punished Maria by forcing her to live in seclusion with her Aunt Norris.I must admit that I found Austen's different methods in dealing with the fates of Lydia and Maria rather mind boggling. Did she ever realize that she had contradicted herself when she gave Maria Rushworth a harsher fate than Lydia Wickham? Mind you, Lydia's fate did not strike me as a bed of roses. She found herself married to a man who was a wastrel that did not love her. But as Austen hinted in the conclusion of "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE", Lydia and Wickham always had Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy to help them out of a financial jam. For some reason, Austen decided that Maria would face an uglier fate - banishment from Mansfield Park and her family and forced to live in seclusion with Aunt Norris. Austen also decided to punish Mary for suggestion the same thing that Mr. Darcy carried out in "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE".Why? Why did Austen give a harsher fate for not only Maria Rushworth, but also Mary Crawford? Did she feel regret for not being harsh enough with Lydia? And what about Mr. Darcy? Why did he receive the gratitude for something that Mary Crawford was punished for suggesting? Because he was the protagonist's love interest? Did Austen expect her readers to change their views of Mr. Darcy's intervention, when she allowed Mary to not only fail in "MANSFIELD PARK" and be punished in the process? Or did Austen have another message in mind? Is it possible that Maria and Mary's cruel fates were some kind of an indictment against the Bertram family's claim of moral righteousness? Personally, I have no idea.
