For the past eight to nine months, I have been increasingly obsessed with Charles Dickens . . . namely television and movie adaptations of his novels and stories. Many may not find this odd, but I do, considering my previous disregard of his writing. Yes, I have seen various Dickens adaptations over the years. But for nearly a year, I have viewed many Dickens adaptations with a vengeance, including the 2000 made-for-television adaptation of his 1850 novel, “DAVID COPPERFIELD”.
This adaptation of “David Copperfield” was a joint American-Irish production that had two Britons – John Davis and Greg Smith; along with an American named Robert A. Halmi serving as the film’s producers. However, the director, Peter Medak, shot the movie in Ireland. Starring Hugh Dancy in the title role, “DAVID COPPERFIELD” told the story of an English author living in Switzerland, as he recounts his life up to that point from his childhood to early adulthood.
While living in Switzerland, David Copperfield has a chance encounter with his stepfather, the brutal Edward Murdstone, who seemed to be courting a wealthy young Englishwoman. David uses this encounter to write his autobiography, beginning with his birth some six months after his father’s death. David recalls his widowed mother and the family’s kind housekeeper Clara Peggotty raising him in an ideal setting. Following his and Peggotty’s visit to the latter’s family in Yarmouth, they return to discover Mrs. Copperfield’s marriage to the harsh Mr. Murdstone. They also meet the latter’s equally loathsome sister, Jane Murdstone. After a physical encounter with Mr. Murdstone, the latter enrolls David into a boarding school under a ruthless headmaster named Mr. Creakle. This decision sets David’s journey in motion in which he makes new friends, forms new enemies and finds love as he matures into adulthood.
Dickens had regarded his 1850 novel as one of his favorite, regarding it as a strong similarity to his own life. Knowing a bit about the author’s life, I found this assessment of his a bit hard to swallow. Perhaps this was wishful thinking on Dickens’ part? Who knows. But I must admit that his story seemed first-class and the beginning of a more mature approach to his writing. This 2000 television movie seemed to reflect both qualities of Dickens’ novel. Although I believe “DAVID COPPERFIELD” seems like a very faithful adaptation of the novel, I believe it is not as close to the latter as some might have believed it should.
I had a few issues with the movie. One, I believe it had made the mistake of closely following the 1935 movie adaptation, produced by David O. Selznick. I thought it had merely paid lip service to the story arc involving David’s schoolfriend James Steerforth and Emily Peggotty and her family. In fact, most of the story involving this arc happened off-screen, much to my disappointment. Also, screenwriter John Goldsmith had reduced law clerk Uriah Heep’s complex embezzlement scheme to a simple one involving stolen diamonds. Perhaps that is why this particular plotline seemed as if it had come out of the blue to simply serve as the character’s downfall. In fact, the movie’s last twenty-to-thirty minutes seemed very rushed to me. I also had one or two issues regarding the casting, but I will later touch upon it.
Despite my issues with parts of the movie’s screenplay, I cannot deny that I had enjoyed “DAVID COPPERFIELD”. I realized this is not the first or last adaptation of Dickens’ novel, but it proved to be the first adaptation I have viewed. Like I said . . . I enjoyed it. Between Goldsmith’s screenplay and Peter Medak’s direction, I believe the movie took care to set up David’s story as a flashback, using his encounter with his old foe as a means to kick start the narrative. “DAVID COPPERFIELD” proved to be a solid, yet entertaining story about the protagonist’s coming-of-age, through his experiences – good, bad and tragic, and the people he met. I honestly thought I would be bored with this movie at least thirty minutes into the story. But I found myself both intrigued and entertained.
Also, it seemed a miracle that the David Copperfield character had not been overshadowed by the more colorful ones that appeared in this story. One has to credit Hugh Darcy for his skillful, yet emotional portrayal of the movie’s protagonist. The actor had received a few negative reviews from critics who thought he had given a weak performance. I . . . have no idea on how to respond to that. I was more than satisfied with his performance.
“DAVID COPPERFIELD” also featured some very competent performances from the rest of the cast. Max Dolbey proved to be effective as the young David. Both Anthony Andrews and Eileen Atkins provided plenty of subtle menace as the cruel Murdstone siblings. Both Emily Hamilton and Julie Cox gave charming performances as David’s two potential love interests – Agnes Wickfield and Dora Spinlow. Judy Cornwell and Nigel Davenport gave skillful performances as the Copperfields’ housekeeper Clara Peggotty and her solid and dependable brother, Dan Peggotty. Dudley Sutton proved to be both charming and eccentric as Aunt Betsy Trotwood’s close friend and tenant. The movie also featured solid performances from the likes of Lesley Manville, Oliver Ford Davies, Edward Hardwicke, Freddie Jones and Simon Delaney.
The two Americans in the cast for “DAVID COPPERFIELD” – Sally Field and Michael Richards – had received a good deal of criticism for their performances. Frankly, I can honestly say that such criticism were unwarranted. At least in my eyes. Granted, it seemed odd hearing that comical voice emitting from Field’s mouth, when she first appeared as Aunt Betsey Trotwood. But in the end, I rather enjoyed her performance. I also enjoyed Michael Richards’ performance as the genial, yet unreliable law clerk Wilkins Micawber. But I must admit there were a few times when the actor had allowed his Cosmo Kramer character from the television series, “SEINFELD” creep into his performance every now and then. Paul Bettany made a first-rate James Steerforth. It seemed a pity that the movie had given him very little screen time. I also feel the same about Sarah Farooqui and Anna Maguire, who had portrayed both the adult and young Emily Piggotty. We finally come to Frank McCusker’s performance as the villain in the story’s second half – Uriah Heep. I thought McCusker gave a skillful portrayal of the character. But at the same time, I found his performance rather exaggerated at times . . . bordering on cartoonish.
“DAVID COPPERFIELD” featured some lovely cinematography, thanks to Elemér Ragályi’s colorful photography of the Irish locations. Michael Pickwoad’s photography and Josie MacAvin’s set decorations did a great job in re-creating early Victorian Britain. And I must admit that I really enjoyed Joan Bergin’s costume designs. Most of the narrative for “DAVID COPPERFIELD” is supposed to be set in the 1840s, but the images below seemed to hint at a late 1850s or early 1860s setting for this particular film:
Overall, “DAVID COPPERFIELD” proved to be an entertaining adaptation of Charles Dickens’ 1850 novel. Granted, I had some issues with the movie’s decision to push most of the James Steerforth and Emily Peggotty arc off-screen and the simplification of Uriah Heep’s scheme. Otherwise, I really enjoyed the movie, thanks to Peter Medak’s direction, John Goldsmith’s screenplay and a very skillful cast led by Hugh Dancy in the title role.
I have a confession to make. I am not a big fan of Agatha Christie novels written after 1960. In fact, I can only think of one . . . perhaps two of them that I consider big favorites of mine. One of those favorites happened to be her 1964 novel, “A Caribbean Mystery”.
There have been three television adaptations of Christie’s novel. I just recently viewed the second adaptation, a BBC-TV production that starred Joan Hickson as Miss Jane Marple. This version began with Miss Marple’s doctor revealing to one of her St. Mary Mead’s neighbors that following a recovery from pneumonia, she had been treated to a vacation to a beach resort in Barbados managed by a young couple named Tim and Molly Kendal, thanks to her nephew Raymond West. Miss Marple becomes acquainted with another resort guest named Major Palgrave, a retired Army officer who tends to bore not her but others with long-winded stories about his military past. But while Miss Marple struggled between shutting out the verbose major and pretending to pay attention to him, the latter shifts his repertoire to tales of murder. When Major Palgrave announces his intention to show her a photo of a murderer, he suddenly breaks off his conversation before he can retrieve his wallet. The following morning, Major Palgrave is found dead inside his bungalow. And Miss Marple begins to suspect that he has been murdered. Two more deaths occurred before she is proven right.
As I had earlier stated, the 1964 novel is one of my favorites written by Christie. And thankfully, this 1989 television movie proved to be a decent adaptation of the novel. Somewhat. Screenwriter T.R. Bowen made a few changes from the novel. Characters like the Prescotts and Señora de Caspearo were removed. I did not miss them. The story’s setting was shifted from the fictional island of St Honoré to Barbados . . . which did not bother me. The television movie also featured the creation of a new character – a Barbados woman named Aunty Johnson, who happened to be the aunt of one of the resort’s maids, Victoria Johnson. The latter made arrangements for Miss Marple to visit her aunt in a black neighborhood. Aunty Johnson replaced Miss Prescott as a source of information on Molly Kendal’s background. More importantly, the Aunty Johnson character allowed Bowen to effectively reveal Imperial British racism to television viewers by including a scene in which the Kendals quietly reprimanded Victoria for setting up Miss Marple’s visit to her aunt.
More importantly, I have always found “A CARIBBEAN MYSTERY” to be an entertaining and well-paced story – whether in print or on the television screen. Bowen did a excellent job in adapting Christie’s tale by revealing clues to the murderer’s identity . . . in a subtle manner. That is the important aspect of Bowen’s work . . . at least for me. The screenwriter and director Christopher Petit presented the clues to the television audience without prematurely giving away the killer. And considering that such a thing has occurred in other Christie adaptations – I am so grateful that it did not occurred in this production.
However, “A CARIBBEAN MYSTERY” does have its flaws. Fortunately, I was only able to spot a few. First of all, I had a problem with Ken Howard’s score. I realize that this production is one of many from the “AGATHA CHRISTIE’S MISS MARPLE” series. But “A CARIBBEAN MYSTERY” is set at a beach resort in the Caribbean. One of those problems proved to be Ken Howard’s score. Considering the movie’s setting at a Caribbean beach resort, I figured Howard would use the appropriate music of the region and the period (1950s) to emphasize the setting. He only did so in a few scenes. Most of the score proved to be the recycled music used in other “AGATHA CHRISTIE’S MISS MARPLE” television movies – you know, music appropriate for scenes at a quaint English village or estate. Frankly, the score and the music’s setting failed to mesh.
I also had a problem with a brief scene near the movie’s ending. This scene featured a brief moment in which an evil (and in my opinion) cartoonish expression appeared on the killer’s face before attempting to commit a third murder. I found this moment obvious, unnecessary and rather infantile. But the movie’s score and this . . . “evil” moment was nothing in compare to the performances of two cast members. I have never seen Sue Lloyd in anything other than this movie. But I am familiar with Robert Swann, who had a major role in the 1981 miniseries, “SENSE AND SENSIBILITY”. Both Lloyd and Swann portrayed a wealthy American couple from the South named Lucky and Greg Dyson. Overall, their performances were not bad. In fact, Lucky and Greg seemed more like complex human beings, instead of American caricatures in the movie’s second half. But their Southern accents sucked. Big time. It was horrible to hear. And quite frankly, their bad accents nearly marred their performances.
But I did not have a problem with the production’s other performances. Joan Hickson gave a marvelous performance as the elderly sleuth, Miss Jane Marple. I especially enjoyed her scenes when her character struggled to stay alert during Major Palgrave’s endless collection of stories. She also had great chemistry with Donald Pleasence, who gave the most entertaining performance as the wealthy and irascible Jason Rafiel. What made the relationship between the pair most interesting is that Rafiel seemed the least likely to believe that Miss Marple is the right person to solve the resort’s murders. Both Michael Feast and Sheila Ruskin gave the two most interesting performances as the very complex Evelyn and Edward Hillingdon, the English couple who found themselves dragged into the messy history of the Dysons, thanks to Edward’s affair with Lucky. I found both Sophie Ward and Adrian Lukis charming as the resort’s owners, Molly and Tim Kendal. I was surprised that the pair had a rather strong screen chemistry and I found Ward particularly effective in conveying Molly Kendal’s emotional breakdown as the situation at the resort began to go wrong. “A CARIBBEAN MYSTERY” also benefited from strong performances given by Frank Middlemass, Barbara Barnes, Isabelle Lucas, Joseph Mydell, Stephen Bent and Valerie Buchanan.
There were a few aspects of “A CARIBBEAN MYSTERY” that rubbed me the wrong way. I felt that most of Ken Howard’s score did not mesh well with the movie’s setting. I also had a problem with a scene in the movie’s last half hour and the accents utilized by two members of the cast. Otherwise, I enjoyed the movie very much and thought that screenwriter T.R. Bowen, director Christopher Petit and a fine cast led by Joan Hickson did a more than solid job in adapting Agatha Christie’s 1964 novel.
After three seasons, the series “STAR TREK VOYAGER” entered into a new era with the two-part episode, (3.26-4.01) “Scorpion”. In “Scorpion”, the crew of the U.S.S. Voyager finally reaches Borg space after three seasons – an event that would serve as a turning point for the series.
Aired at the end of Season Three and the beginning of Season Four, “Scorpion” finds the Voyager entering Borg space. To the crew’s surprise, they discover that the Borg is engaged in a major conflict with another alien race called Species 8472. An even more discovery awaits when Captain Kathryn Janeway and her crew learn that the Borg is losing its war with Species 8472. But when the crew’s Ocampa nurse, Kes, receives hostile telepathic messages from Species 8472 and when Operation Officer Ensign Harry Kim has an encounter with a member of Species 8472 that nearly costs him his life, Janeway decides that the only way for Voyager to survive this new conflict is to form an alliance with the Borg that would guarantee the ship’s safe passage through Borg space.
Written by Brannon Braga and Joe Menosky, and directed by David Livingston (“Part I”) and Winrich Kolbe (“Part II”); “Scorpion” turned out to be an excellent story that is regarded as the best two-part episode in the entire series by TREK fans. Personally, I do not share this particular opinion. But I must admit that it was first-rate. As I had stated earlier, “Scorpion” served as a turning point for “STAR TREK VOYAGER”. First of all, the episode featured Voyager’s first encounter with Species 8472. The episode – at least “Part II” introduced new crew member, Seven-of-Nine aka Annika Hansen. Consequences from Janeway’s alliance with the Borg not only left her with a new crew member, but would end up having consequences in future episodes such as (4.16) “Prey”, (4.26) “Hope and Fear”, (5.04) “In the Flesh” and (5.15-5.16) “Dark Frontier”.
The emotional consequences of “Scorpion” was also well-handled by the screenwriters and the directors. One thing, the episode revealed that aside from the “Q” Continuum, a race more powerful than the Borg existed in “TREK” universe. Many fans saw the weakening of the Borg in the following “VOYAGER” episodes as something to mourn. I found this opinion amazing, considering that an episode highly popular with the fans, would prove to provide the first real sign of weakness with in the Borg. I had no problem with the gradual weakening of the Borg. If the Borg had remained the near unbeatable nemesis first introduced in “STAR TREK NEXT GENERATION”, their story arc would have remained stuck in perpetual stagnation. And it only seemed proper that the Borg’s gradual decline would occur on “VOYAGER”, considering that the series was set in the Delta Quadrant, their base of operation. There were other aspects of “Scorpion” that I found admirable – namely Jeffrey Baxter and Dick Brownfield’s special effects, along with Marvin V. Rush’s cinematography that greatly enhanced the sequences featuring the Borg’s confrontations with Species 8472.
“Scorpion” also revealed that the Janeway/Chakotay command team had yet to be fully been realized by the end of Season Three. When I first saw this episode, it amazed me that the Captain and her First Officer had failed to perfect a command style after three years in the Delta Quadrant. Now I realized that I should not have been surprised. Janeway and Chakotay spent the first two seasons trying to merge the Starfleet and Maquis factions of the ship’s crew. Once the two factions learned to regard themselves as one crew, both Janeway and Chakotay spent all of Season Three congratulating themselves for achieving this fusion and ignoring the fact that they had yet learned to create a stable command team. They only had one misstep during Season Three – namely Chakotay’s experiences with a colony of former Borg drones in (3.17) “Unity”. Seasons One and Two served as Janeway and Chakotay’s attempts to fuse Voyager’s two factions into one. Season Three served as their honeymoon period. But during Seasons Four and Five – starting with “Scorpion” – the two senior officers were finally forced to confront each other’s personality quirks and form a solid command team.
Both Captain Janeway and Commander Chakotay had made serious mistakes in “Scorpion”. Janeway blindly refused to accept Chakotay’s warnings about the Borg, believing that her position as Captain made her supremely right. She also allowed her disappointment in Chakotay’s doubts to blind her and take his criticisms personally. As for Chakotay, he allowed his past experiences with the former Borg drones in “Unity” to disobey Janeway and literally make a mess of the alliance she had formed with the Borg. It is possible that in this episode, he made a lousy First Officer, because he had yet to recover from no longer being the Captain of his old Maquis star ship. Now, I do not expect the First Officer to follow his/her captain blindly. It might make for great screen chemistry, but in reality, I cannot help thinking that would be a dangerous situation. Imagine how the crew of the “U.S.S. Caine” would have fared if Van Johnson’s character had blindly followed Humphrey Bogart’s in 1954’s “THE CAINE MUTINY”. Or how would the U.S.S. Enterprise-E have fared if Doctor Beverly Crusher, Lieutenant-Commander Worf and Lily Sloane had allowed Captain Jean-Luc Picard to continue his obsession against the Borg in 1996’s “STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT”. I cannot help but feel that this conflict between Janeway and Chakotay should have been experienced by their first or second year together as Captain and First Officer. Not after three years. But unusual circumstances – namely their efforts to fuse the Starfleet and Maquis factions – prevented this.
Before I end this article, I have to comment on the acting featured in this episode. The supporting cast gave their usual solid performances – especially Tim Russ as Lieutenant Tuvok, Garrett Wang as Harry Kim, Jennifer Lien as Kes and Robert Picardo as the Doctor. But the truly outstanding performances came from three people – Kate Mulgrew, Robert Beltran and Jeri Ryan. The latter would prove to be an interesting addition to the “VOYAGER” cast as the ambiguous soon-to-be former drone, Seven-of-Nine. Beltran, who has always been belittled by “TREK” fans as a wooden performer, was far from wooden as a doubtful and paranoid Chakotay. Kate Mulgrew gave an equally first-rate performance as always complex and interesting Kathryn Janeway.
In a way, I can see why “Scorpion” is regarded by many “VOYAGER” fans as the high mark of the series. It is a well-written episode that steered the series into a new direction. But there are other two-part episodes that are bigger favorites of mine. I would not regard “Scorpion” as the high mark of “VOYAGER”, but perhaps as one of the series’ high marks.
Below is my ranking of the Season One episodes from the Prime video streaming series, “SISI”, German historical drama based on the life of Empress Elisabeth of Austria. The series stars Dominique Devenport and Jannik Schümann as Empress Elisabeth and Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria:
RANKING OF “SISI” SEASON ONE (2021) EPISODES
1. (1.05) “Folge 5” – Emperor Franz Joseph I narrowly escapes an assassination attempt during the Austrian Empire’s war against Lombardy independence. Empress Elisabeth (Sisi) provides aid at a military hospital and later, persuades Franz to to meet Count Andrassy during a reception in Budapest and negotiate a peace treaty.
2. (1.02) “Folge 2” – Sisi’s engagement to Franz turns her life upside down, as her future is now mapped out and she must quickly prepare for her next role.
3. (1.04) “Folge 4” – An assassination attempt on the Emperor and the impending war in Lombardy cast a shadow over Franz and Sisi’s happiness.
4. (1.01) “Folge 1” – As one of Duke Maximilian Joseph of Bavaria’s daughters, Sisi grows up in a carefree environment. She is forced to accompany her sister Helene to Austria, due to the latter’s potential engagement to Franz.
5. (1.03) “Folge 3” – Sisi and Franz’s wedding night ends in failure, but Franz decides to uphold Sisi’s honor. Sisi seeks intimacy advice from a prostitute she had befriended named Fanny.
6. (1.06) “Folge 6” – After the death of their daughter, Archduchess Sophie; Sisi and Franz return to Austria, where Sisi’s family is waiting to assist them through this difficult time.
I have a confession to make. I have never seen a movie or television adaptation of Leo Tolstoy’s 1869 novel, “War and Peace”. Never. Well . . . I once made an attempt to watch the 1956 movie adaptation directed by King Vidor. Unfortunately, I could never go the distance. In fact, I have never read the novel.
However, many years passed. When I heard about the BBC’s latest adaptation of Tolstoy’s novel, my curiosity got the best of me and I decided to give “WAR & PEACE” a chance. The six-part miniseries is simply about the experiences of five Russian families during the Napoleonic Wars in the early 19th century. Those families include the Bezukhovs, the Bolkonskys, the Rostovs, the Kuragins, and theDrubetskoys. The miniseries seemed to be divided into three segments during a period between 1805 and 1812-13. The first segment featured the introduction of the main characters and Russia’s preparation of a war against Napoleon’s France. This culminates into the Battle of Austerlitz in which two major characters – Prince Andrei Nikolayevich Bolkonsky and Count Nikolai Ilyich Rostov – participate.
The second segment featured the characters’ personal experiences at home. During this period, the miniseries explored Count Pyotr “Pierre” Kirillovich Bezukhov’s failed marriage with the beautiful, but vapid and unfaithful Princess Yelena “Hélène” Vasilyevna Kuragina; the Rostov family’s financial woes and how it affected Nikolai Rostov; the emotional strains within the Bolkonsky family; Prince Boris Drubetskoy’s efforts to advance his military career; and especially Countess Natalya “Natasha” Ilyinichna Rostova’s love life, which included both Andrei Bolkonsky and Prince Anatole Vasilyevich Kuragin. This segment also included news of Treaties of Tilsit of 1807, which ended hostilities between Imperial France and Imperial Russia and Prussia. The miniseries’ final segment focused on France’s invasion of Russia in 1812 and the characters’ efforts to survive it.
I could compare director Tom Harper and screenwriter Andrew Davies’ adaptation with Tolstoy’s novel, but it would be a useless effort. As I had earlier pointed out, I have never read the novel. But I do have at least two complaints about the productions. One of them revolved around the relationship between Natasha Rostova and Andrei Bolkonsky. I realize that the publicity machine on both sides of the Atlantic had undergone a great effort to build up the relationship between the pair. Frankly, I found the publicity campaign rather wasted. The Natasha/Andrei romance struck me as a disappointing and wasted effort. The majority of their story arc – which began with their meeting at a ball near the end of Episode Three, continued with Natasha’s brief romance with the slimy Anatole Kuragin, and ended with Natasha’s romances with both men crashing around her by the end of Episode Four; had moved . . . so damn fast that it left my head spinning. I cannot help but wonder if the entire arc could have been portrayed with more detail if the series had stretched a bit longer.
I also had a problem with Edward K. Gibbon’s costume designs. I found most of them very colorful, especially for the aristocratic characters. But I also found most of them rather troublesome. Well . . . to be honest, I found them either mediocre or historically questionable. One of them left me gritting my teeth:
But my jaw had literally dropped at the sight of a few costumes worn by actresses Tuppence Middleton and Gillian Anderson – including those shown in the images below:
WHAT IN THE HELL??? Their costumes looked more appropriate for present-day evening wear than the early 19th century. What was Mr. Gibbons thinking?
Despite the rushed Natasha Rostova/Andrei Bolkonsky romance and despite the rather questionable costumes, I managed to enjoy “WAR & PEACE” very much. I am a sucker for family sagas, especially when they are seeped in a historical background. And “WAR & PEACE” nearly pushed every one of my buttons when it comes to a well made saga. It had everything – romance, family struggles, historical events and personages. When I realized that Tolstoy had originally focused his tale on five families, I did not think Andrew Davies would be able to translate the author’s novel in a tight story without losing its epic quality.
There were certain sequences that really blew my mind, thanks to Davies’ writing and especially, Tom Harper’s direction. I thought Harper did an outstanding job of re-creating battles like Austerlitz and Borodino, along with the French Army’s retreat from Moscow. Harper also did a great job in directing large parties and ball scenes. My two favorites are the party held at St. Petersburg socialite Anna Pavlovna Scherer’s salon in Episode 1 and the ball where Natasha and Andrei met in Episode 3.
But it was not just the battle and crowd scenes that impressed me. “WAR & PEACE” is – after all – a melodrama, even if many literary critics are inclined not to admit it. I never thought I would find myself getting caught up in the lives of the saga’s main characters. But I did. I must admit that I admire how Tolstoy . . . and Davies managed to allow the three main characters – Pierre, Natasha and Andrei – to interact with the five families, regardless of blood connection or marriage. I especially enjoyed the explorations into the lives of Pierre, the Rostovs and the Bolkonskys. At first glance, some might regard the miniseries’ ending that featured a picnic with the families of the three leads as a bit on the saccharine. It did have a “happily ever after” tinge about it. But I read in a newspaper article that complained about Tolstoy’s “realistic” ending – one that featured a less-than-happy view of the protagonists’ lives and a critique from Tolstoy on all forms of mainstream history. Thanks to Davies’ screenplay, audiences were spared of this.
“WAR & PEACE” featured a good number of first-rate performances from a supporting cast that included Stephen Rea, Gillian Anderson, Tuppence Middleton, Callum Turner, Mathieu Kassovitz, Jessie Buckley, Adrian Edmondson, Aisling Loftus, Rebecca Front and Aneurin Barnard. However, I was especially impressed by certain supporting performances. One came from Greta Scacchi, who portrayed the Rostov family’s practical and sometimes ruthless matriarch Countess Natalya Rostova. I also enjoyed Brian Cox’s portrayal of the world weary General Mikhail Kutuzov, who has to contend with not only Napolean’s army, but also the amateurish interference of the Czar. Tom Burke did a great job in portraying the wolfish and ambitious army officer, Fedor Dolokhov, who eventually becomes a better man following Napoleon’s invasion. Jack Lowden’s portrayal of the young Count Nikolai Rostov really impressed me, especially when his character found himself torn between following his heart and marrying a wealthy woman to restore his family’s fortunes. And Jim Broadbent gave a very colorful performance as Prince Nikolai Bolkonsky, the mercurial and controlling patriarch of the Bolkonsky family.
And what about the production’s three leads? Lily James gave a very charming performance as Countess Natasha Rostova. Well . . . I take that back. Describing James’ performance as simply “charming” seemed to hint that I found it rather shallow. Yes, James handled Natasha’s “light” moments with her usual competence. More importantly, she did an excellent job in conveying Natasha’s personal struggles – especially during the series’ second half. There were times when I did not know what to make of the Prince Andrei Bolkonsky. He struck me as a very unusual protagonist. Although I found him rather honorable and filled with valor, Andrei did not always struck me as likable – especially in his relationship with adoring, yet ignored wife Lise. And Norton superbly captured the many nuances of Andrei’s character. If Andrei Bolkonsky struck me as an unusual protagonist, Count Pierre Bezukhov struck me as one of a kind. Well . . . one of a kind for a literary piece written in the 19th century. Sometimes, I get the feeling that someone like Pierre could easily translate into a late 20th century or early 21st century geek. Or perhaps not. I think Pierre is too kind and open-minded to be considered a geek. But he is very unusual for a leading man. And thanks to Paul Dano’s superb portrayal, Pierre has become one of my favorite fictional characters. He did a stupendous job in conveying Pierre’s character from this insecure and rather naive man to a man who learned to find wisdom and inner peace through his struggles. Dano was so good that I had assumed that his performance would garner him a major acting nomination. It did not and I am still flabbergasted by this travesty.
My taste in period dramas usually focused on stories set in the United States or Great Britain . . . with the occasional foray into France. I was very reluctant to tackle this latest adaptation of Leo Tolstoy’s most famous novel. But I was in the mood for something new and decided to watch the six-part miniseries. I am happy to say that despite some flaws, I ended up enjoying “WAR & PEACE” very much, thanks to Andrew Davies’ screenplay, Tom Harper’s direction and an excellent cast led by Paul Dano, James Norton and Lily James.
“INTO THE WEST” (2005) – “JACOB WHEELER AND THE AWARENESS OF SELF”
Many people would usually consider the topic of Self Awareness when discussing New Age religions or Eastern mysticism. Characters from a Western television miniseries seems like the last thing anyone would think of when discussing the meaning of Self. Yet, a major character led me to consider this very topic, while re-watching Steven Spielberg’s 2005 miniseries about two families – Lakota and western Virginia – called “INTO THE WEST”.
“Self” has been described as the essential self or the core of an individual. A person who has learned to live one’s life with a strong sense of Self is considered as someone who has achieved or come close to a level of self-actualization – namely, achieving personal growth through accepting the true core of oneself. If there is one character in “INTO THE WEST” who seemed to personify self-actualization, it was Thunder Heart Woman (Tonazin Carmelo and later Sheila Tousey), the Lakota woman who had married into the Wheeler family. I am not saying that Thunder Heart Woman was a person with no insecurities, personal demons or anything of the sort. But of all the major characters, she seemed to be more in tune of what and more importantly, who she was.
In the miniseries’ second episode titled, “Manifest Destiny”, Thunder Heart Woman had seemed impervious to the Wheeler family’s attitude toward her, during her immediate family’s short stay with her in-laws in Virginia. Even when faced with the disapproval of a German minister and fellow wagon immigrant called Preacher Hobbes (Derek de Lint), she remained impervious to his bigotry. At least according to her husband’s narrative. But this essay is not about Thunder Heart Woman. It is about one of the men in her life – the one love in her life, who managed to catch my attention. Namely one Jacob Wheeler (Matthew Settle and later John Terry).
The third of four brothers from a Virginia wheelwright family, Jacob Wheeler seemed very similar to his Lakota wife – the type of person that seemed to know his own mind. The miniseries’ first episode, ”Wheel to the Stars” revealed that Jacob’s Virginia family seemed to view him as a non-conformist . . . or oddball. He, in turn, regarded his hometown of Wheelerton, Virginia; his family and its profession with mild contempt. In short, this young Virginian was a fish out of water in 1825 America and he knew it. This would explain Jacob’s longing to see the world beyond his hometown and the eastern United States. He did not hesitate to express his enthusiasm for the West. After meeting mountain man James Fletcher (Will Patton), he immediately set out to achieve his desire to leave Wheelerton.
Possessing a talent for persuasion, Jacob managed to convince two of his brothers – Nathan (Alan Tudyk) and Jethro (Skeet Ulrich) – into joining his trek to the West. Jethro turned back at the last minute and Nathan ended up accompanying him. After Jacob and Nathan parted ways in St. Louis, the former caught up with Fletcher and famed mountain man, Jedediah Smith (Josh Brolin) and convinced the latter to allow him to accompany Smith’s expedition to California. I could probably list a number of examples of Jacob’s talent for persuasion, along with his exuberant and non-conformist nature. What I had failed to mention was that he possessed a strong and stubborn will to achieve what he desired. A perfect example of this was his determination to return to California after he, Smith and their fellow mountain men had been kicked out of the province by Mexican authorities. Not only did Jacob manage to achieve this goal, he did so at a great price. And yet . . . one of the interesting aspects of the Jacob Wheeler character is that despite possessing a strong will and extroverted nature, he also had certain vulnerable characteristics and insecurities. Especially insecurities. In both ”Wheel to the Stars” and ”Manifest Destiny”, Jacob’s relationships with his Wheelerton family and Thunder Heart Woman revealed just how insecure he could be.
Jacob seemed to have a rather peculiar relationship with his Virginia family. Despite regarding them with contempt for their provincial attitudes, he had also allowed their attitudes to bring out his own insecurities. His grandfather Abraham (Ken Pogue), his father Enoch (Serge Houde) and his three brothers – Nathan, Ezra (Joshua Kalef) and Jethro – either derided or teased him about his lack of interest in the family’s wheelwright business. And all of them viewed Jacob as a daydreamer with no sense of family duty or any common sense. The Wheelers have never hesitated to express their low opinion of Jacob’s desire to experience life beyond Wheelerton. I cannot help but wonder if the Wheelers’ contempt toward Jacob’s non-conformist ways had bred a sense of insecurity within him. Or if this insecurity was one of the reasons behind his desire to escape Wheelerton for the west.
It is possible that I may have stumbled across one result from Jacob’s less-than-ideal relationship with his Virginia family. I do not know if anyone else had noticed, but it seemed to me that whenever any of the other Wheelers teased, ranted or expressed contempt toward Jacob or his views on the West, he rarely bothered to defend himself. Jacob did not defend himself whenever his brothers mocked him at the dinner table.; when Jethro made the “tail tucked between your legs” comment, following Jacob’s return to Wheelerton in “Manifest Destiny”; and when Enoch accused him of luring both Nathan and later, Jacob to the West. Instead of defending himself, Jacob merely remained silent in an effort to ignore the hurtful comments.
However, there have also been moments when he did defend himself. Jacob made a snarky comment about his grandfather Abraham’s penchant for rambling on about his past as Revolutionary War veteran and the family’s business. And the elderly man reacted in such a vitriolic manner that I found myself wondering if Jacob had ended up with a new hole in his backside. When Nathan raged against him for helping an escaped slave named Ben Franklin (Sean Blakemore) in Tennessee, Jacob insisted they had done the right thing considering that Ben had earlier released Nathan after holding him hostage with a knife. And when Nathan lost his temper over Jacob’s refusal to follow him to Texas, the younger brother merely insisted upon continuing his intention to join Jedidiah Smith’s expedition.
One could only wonder why Jacob had rarely bothered to defend himself against his family’s scorn. Did he share Thunder Heart Woman’s talent for imperviously ignoring the scorn and prejudices of others? I rather doubt it. Whereas Thunder Heart Woman had seemed unconcerned by others, Jacob’s face tends to express his pain or embarrassment caused by his family’s attitudes. I suspect that deep down, Jacob longed for not only his family’s respect, but their acceptance of his true self. But unlike many people, he was not willing to change his nature for the Wheelers or anyone else’s acceptance.
Why did Jacob decide to return to Wheelerton with his pregnant wife and daughter after eleven years in the West? In his narration, Jacob claimed that he wanted Thunder Heart Woman and his daughter Margaret Light Shines (Elizabeth Sage, later Irene Bedard) to meet his Virginia family. Perhaps he was telling the truth. Yet, a part of me found that hard to believe. The moment Jacob began to enjoy his Lakota in-laws’ hospitality, he felt certain that his own family extend the same kind of warmth to his wife. And yet . . . he had insisted upon returning to Virginia. Why? Had Jethro hinted the truth in his “tail tuckered between his legs” comment – that Jacob encountered nothing but failure in the West and returned back to Virginia for a livelihood? Or was it something deeper? Perhaps a last chance for Jacob to seek final acceptance from his family? Who knows.
Whatever Jacob had sought in 1836 Virginia, he did not find it. His father Enoch revealed that the family’s wheelwright business had suffered a setback, due to the economic depression that struck the United States in the mid and late 1830s. And the Wheelers seemed no more closer in accepting Jacob for himself or his Western family. His cousin, Naomi Wheeler (Keri Russell) viewed Indians as non-human. His brother Ezra regarded Thunder Heart Woman as a mere “squaw”. Naomi’s sister, Rachel (Jessica Capshaw), viewed young Margaret’s hand as a piece of dung. And Enoch seemed to act as if his new daughter-in-law and grandchildren did not exist. No wonder Jacob ended up complaining about the Wheelers’ treatment of his Lakota family.
Eventually, Jacob decided to take his wife and children and return to the West permanently – preferably Californa. It seemed the Wheelers’ continuing disregard toward them – along with news of his idol Jedediah Smith’s death – led to this decision. He almost seemed cold and distant toward his parents and Ezra. But he did not count on Jethro and his three female cousins’ decision to accompany him to California. Apparently, not all of the Wheelers viewed him as an oddball for his preference for the West. Jacob seemed heartened by Jethro’s decision to join him. And although Naomi, Rachel and Leah’s (Emily Holmes) decision to join the trek West took him by surprise, Jacob readily accepted their company. In the following narration, he came to this conclusion:
“I hope that I would prove equal to the responsibility I had undertaken.”
I found this comment rather odd. Jethro and the three cousins had been determined to follow Jacob and Thunder Heart Woman on the trek to California, regardless of anything the couple would have done or said. Even Jethro had later pointed this out.
The next three years (1837-1840) must have been the best Jacob had ever experienced with any of the Virginia Wheelers. The three cousins – Naomi, Rachel and Leah – finally began to view Thunder Heart Woman as a member of the family and cherished her and Jacob’s three children (Abraham had been born in Wheelerton in 1836 and Jacob Jr. was born in Missouri sometime in late 1840). Jacob’s close relationship with Jethro seemed like a far cry from the conflicts with Nathan that marred his trip to the west back in the 1820s. One would begin to think that Jacob no longer suffered from any insecurity by this point. And yet . . . they only remained buried inside him, waiting for the right moment to manifest.
In the end, it took the wagon train journey to California (dubbed “the Wagon Train of Doom” by me) featured in “Manifest Destiny” for Jacob’s insecurities to get the best of him. Upon their arrival in Independence, Missouri in the fall of 1840, the Wheeler family remained there during the winter before joining a California-bound wagon train led by one Stephen Hoxie (Beau Bridges) in the spring of 1841. Surprisingly, only Thunder Heart Woman seemed reluctant to leave Missouri. I suspect she had enough of being constantly on the move for the past several years. But the rest of the Wheelers, especially Jacob, seemed determined to head for California.
Once the Hoxie wagon company began their westward trek, everything seemed to be faring well. The weather seemed beautiful. Everyone seemed to be in good spirits – including the black family from Illinois named Jones that managed to join the wagon train without any opposition. Both Naomi and Rachel attracted the romantic attention of the train’s two scouts – ‘Skate’ Guthrie and James ‘Jim’ Ebbets (Ryan Robbins and Christopher Heyerdahl). This contentment finally ended when Thunder Heart Woman spotted wolves feeding off the corpse of a buffalo and when the train later crossed what I believe was the Big Blue River. The incident proved to be the first of two disagreements between the couple. Thunder Heart Woman viewed the wolves as a sign that the wagon train would come to a bad end. She insisted that the Wheeler family return to Missouri. Jacob dismissed her worries as superstition on her part. But the expression on his face clearly indicated his doubts on the wisdom of the trip.
Then the first disaster struck. One of the emigrants, a German-born minister named Preacher Hobbes (Derek de Lint), lost control of his wagon during the crossing. Distracted by the Hobbes family’s situation, Jethro nearly lost control of his wagon. Leah fell out of the wagon and drowned in the river’s fast flowing water. Although Hobbes received an angry response for his carelessness from Captain Hoxie, the Wheeler women’s anger seemed to be directed at Jacob for leading them to this western trek. The expression of guilt seemed very palpable on Jacob’s face, as Naomi demanded that he take the family back to Missouri. Leah’s death proved to be just the beginning.
The further west the wagon train traveled, more disasters followed. The emigrants were forced to deal with a severe thunderstorm and a cattle stampede that left the only son of a black emigrant named Absalom Jones (Neville Edwards) dead. Not long after the storm and the stampede, both Naomi and Rachel married two of the wagon train’s scouts, Skate and Jim. But that brief period of happiness failed to last when the wagon train attempted to travel through a pass. While traversing a pass, a wagon broke free, knocked Rachel down and ran over her leg, causing a severe compound fracture. The leg eventually became infected. Hobbes, the closest thing to a doctor available, tried to amputate Rachel’s leg; but his efforts turned out to be clumsy and Rachel died before he could finish. Although no family member angrily demanded that return to Missouri, the expression on Jacob’s face obviously conveyed his feelings of guilt.
The final blow to Jacob’s disastrous return to the west occurred when Mrs. Jones died from cholera. Since the Wheelers’ wagons had been traveling with the Jones’ wagon at the back of the train, they had been exposed to the disease. Hoxie and the scouts forced the Wheelers and the remaining members of the Jones family (Mr. Jones and Sally Jones) to remain behind under quarantine while the main body of the wagon train carries on. Only Naomi was able to continue with the train, since she had been with her new husband. Jethro became afflicted with symptoms of cholera but recovered. Both Jacob and Thunder Heart Woman drifted into a serious quarrel, when he suggested that she take their children and attempt to find her Lakota family. Needless to say, Thunder Heart Woman took the suggestion badly and reminded Jacob that he should have listened to her warnings about the journey.
No new outbreaks occurred after Jacob ordered that all drinking water be boiled. The Wheelers and the Jones rushed to catch up with the wagon train, but discovered that it had been attacked by Cheyenne warriors. All of the emigrants had been wiped out, aside from Naomi, who first became a captive and later, a wife of a Cheyenne chief Prairie Fire (Jay Tavare). The Wheelers and the Jones families were also attacked by Cheyenne warriors. They managed to repulse the attack, but Jacob ended up seriously wounded by an arrow in his chest. The surviving emigrants tried to move on with a wounded Jacob, but the juts and bumps of the trail made it impossible for him to endure the pain. Instead, he insisted that Thunder Heart Woman, Jethro, Mr. Jones and the children continue west to California without him, since he would only prevent them from crossing the Sierra Nevada Mountains before winter. They left him behind with great reluctance.
Thanks to a fortuitous encounter with one of his brothers-in-law, Running Fox (Zahn McClarnon), Jacob survived his wound before continuing west. The period he spent east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains allowed him to wallow in loneliness and grief over the separation from his family. But he remained determined to find them. And it took him another four to five years before he finally did. Becoming a member of John Charles Frémont’s California Volunteer Militia during the Mexican-American War allowed Jacob to scour the region for signs or news of his remaining family. Five years passed before he finally came upon the ranch that Jethro and Thunder Heart Woman had settled. Jacob also discovered that in the intervening years, his brother and wife had considered him dead, began a relationship and had a child – a little girl named Cornflower. Devastated by this turn of events, Jacob decided not to reveal himself to his family. At least not openly. Instead, he left the wooden medicine wheel necklace that Thunder Heart Woman had given him when they first met to his youngest child, Jacob High Cloud. Another five years passed before Jacob finally reconciled with his family, due to the efforts of his daughter, Margaret Light Shines.
Ever since I first saw “INTO THE WEST” and especially the above mentioned scene from “Manifest Destiny”, I have found myself wondering about Jacob’s actions. I understood why he decided not to intrude upon the family that Jethro and Thunder Heart Woman had formed upon their arrival in California. But why did he leave the medicine wheel necklace to young Jacob? Surely, he knew that his family would be aware that he was alive . . . and knew about their situation? Looking back on his action, it struck me as a very passive-aggressive on his part. He lacked the courage to face Jethro and Thunder Heart Woman. And yet, he seemed determined to thwart the happiness they had created . . . as if he was punishing them for continuing their lives without him. Or perhaps Jacob felt a great deal of envy toward Jethro because the latter turned out to be the one who successfully led the family to California, and not him.
Perhaps Jacob had always a passively-aggressive personality from the beginning. His relationship with his Virginia family struck me as being marked by a great deal of passive-aggressive behavior from the start. Jacob seemed determined to be his own man, whether in his enthusiasm for the West, his decision to leave Wheeler or join Jedediah Smith’s expedition over following his brother Nathan to Texas. And yet . . . he never defended himself in the face of their criticism. Instead, he resorted to resentful silence. Why did he constantly fail to defend himself? Was he merely trying to keep the peace? Or did some small part of him fear that his family may have been right about him? It seemed strange than many fans and critics of “INTO THE WEST” seemed to adore Jacob for his seemingly self-assurance and outgoing personality. At the same time, they derided Jethro for being an insecure loser in their eyes. I got the feeling that they were so busy either scorning Jethro or adulating Jacob that they failed to detect the latter’s personal insecurities and darker traits. And Jacob certainly had them by the bucketful.
Did Jacob ever overcome his insecurities? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I wonder if many are aware of this, but it usually takes an individual to overcome his or her faults during an entire lifetime. A good number of people never succeed in overcoming all of their faults. And since “INTO THE WEST” focused more on his and Thunder Heart Woman’s children in the last three episodes, audiences never discovered if he had overcome all of his faults and insecurities. Jacob certainly seemed more at peace in his old age than he did during his first forty years. Perhaps those years of solitude near the Sierra Mountains foothills helped him finally achieve some inner peace.
Adapted from Agatha Christie’s 1940 novel, “SAD CYPRESS” is a story about Hercule Poirot’s efforts to discover the truth behind the case of a young woman facing conviction for the murder of her ailing wealthy aunt and a lodge keeper’s daughter who has become her aunt’s companion. Directed by David Moore, this 90-minute movie starred David Suchet as the Belgian detective.
The story began with a doctor from a small town named Peter Lord who hires Hercule Poirot to clear the name of a young woman Elinor Carlisle. Elinor is facing trial for the murder of a young woman named Mary Gerard, the beautiful companion of her late aunt, Mrs. Laura Welman. Through interviews and flashbacks, Poirot learns that Elinor was engaged to Mrs. Welman’s nephew by marriage, Roddy Welman. Unfortunately for Elinor, Roderick (or Roddy) falls in love with Mary. Realizing that marriage to Roddy would be useless, Elinor ends the engagement, freeing him to pursue Mary. But her resentment toward her aunt’s companion fails to fade. And when Mary dies from poisoning during an afternoon tea, suspicion falls upon Elinor and she is arrested for murder. When Poirot and the authorities discover that Mrs. Welman had died of poisoning and was the real mother of Mary Gerard, Elinor is charged with the murder of her aunt.
I have one complaint about “SAD CYPRESS”. The revelation of the murderer produced a contrived ending to an otherwise first-rate murder mystery. I am not joking. The method in which the two crimes were committed and how Poirot came to the truth seemed rather unbelievable.
With that out of the way, I did find the rest of “SAD CYPRESS” to be very satisfying. Hell, it was more than satisfying. One, Poirot found himself with a case that seemed nearly hopeless for Elinor Carlisle. Two, it was a case that featured two murders committed in the distant past. I have a soft spot for murder stories that come close to resembling historical mysteries. Three, not only did Poirot play a major role in this story – much stronger than he did in “THE HOLLOW”, but so did the Elinor Carlisle character. One would think that the Mary Gerard character had a major impact upon the story. And she . . . plot wise. But for me, Elinor Carlisle had a stronger impact. On the surface, she seemed like a pleasant and well-bred young woman who kept her emotion in check. But that was simply a façade. Despite her reserved nature, Elinor’s raging emotions seemed to be felt or sensed by those around her. The impact of her personality gave the story an emotional punch that I found rewarding.
The producers of “SAD CYPRESS” certainly selected the right actress to portray Elinor Carlisle. Elisabeth Dermot-Walsh was the right woman to project an air of English gentility that masked the personality of a passionate woman who loved just a little too heavily. Especially in scenes that required little or no dialogue, Dermot-Walsh did a superb job in displaying great pathos. Also superb was David Suchet as Poirot. I must admit that “SAD CYPRESS” featured what I believe to be one of Suchet’s better performances in the role. In this particular movie, his Poirot projected a large array of emotions – frustration, patience, perplexity and cunning – that I have rarely seen in many other Poirot movies.
The rest of the cast struck me as pretty solid. Rupert Penry-Jones proved once again what a chameleon he could be in his dead-on portrayal of Elinor’s fiancé, the supercilious, yet proud and shallow Roderick Welman. Both Phyllis Logan and Marion O’Dwyer gave a complex performances the two nurses who befriended Mary, Nurse Hopkins and Nurse O’Brien. Paul McGann was vibrant as the passionate Dr. Peter Lord, the local doctor who was in love with Elinor Carlisle. Kelly Reilly portrayed the story’s catalyst, Mary Gerard. But the character struck me as so bland that I felt Reilly could hardly do anything with the role.
Production designer Michael Pickwoad did a solid job of supporting the movie’s setting of rural England in the late 1930s. And Sheena Napier’s costume designs seemed historically accurate and colorful without being too theatrical. Thanks to a first-rate cast led by David Suchet and Elisabeth Dermot-Walsh, along with Dave Moore’s adaptation of Christie’s emotional tale of jealousy and greed, “SAD CYPRESS” turned out to be one of the better versions of a Christie murder mystery I have seen in the past two decades or so.
Kate Austen has to be one of the most divisive characters on the ABC series, “LOST”. The character has generated some very extreme reactions from the show’s fans. The latter have either loved her or hated her. I had harbored a good deal of dislike toward Kate, myself for a long period. However, my dislike stemmed from the writers’ handling of her character and a good number of the fans’ attitude toward the mistakes and crimes she had committed. A good example of this attitude could be found in the general reaction to the Season Two episode called (2.09) “What Kate Did”.
This episode followed up on the disastrous first meeting between the remaining Tail Section survivors and the Fuselage survivors in episodes (2.06) “Abandoned” and (2.08) “Collision”. Ana-Lucia Cortez and her fellow Tailies finally made it to the Fuselage camp, but with tragedy in their wake. Ana-Lucia had accidentally shot and killed Shannon Rutherford, after mistaking the younger woman for the Others, following the disappearance of stewardess Cindy Chandler. James “Sawyer” Ford; who had been badly wounded by one of the Others in the Season One finale, (1.24) “Exodus, Part II”, while trying to prevent ten year-old Walt Lloyd from being kidnapped; finally received decent medical attention from leader Dr. Jack Shephard. There was a good deal of marital reconciliations that occurred. Rose Nadler finally reconciled with her husband, Tail Section survivor Bernard Nadler, in the previous episode. And the series’ favorite South Korean couple, Jin and Sun Kwon, celebrated their reconciliation after four days with . . . well, with sex.
Everything seemed to be going well with everyone . . . except for fugitive and Fuselage survivor Kate Austen. While gathering fruit from a tree, she spotted a black horse in the jungle. Later, while feeding the semi-conscious Sawyer with the fruit, he grabbed her by the neck and demanded to know why she had killed him. The black horse and Sawyer’s attack led Kate to speculate on whether the former had been possessed by the spirit of her dead stepfather, Wayne Janssen. Three years earlier, Kate had discovered that her stepfather was actually her real father. Due to Wayne’s physical abuse of her mother Diane and alcoholism, Kate harbored a deep hatred of him. But the realization that he was her biological father led her to murder him via an explosion of the Janssen house and commit insurance fraud in order to provide for her mother. Although U.S. Marshal Edward Mars managed to capture her before she could purchase a bus ticket to Tallahassee, Kate eventually escaped and spent the next three years as a fugitive from justice. The episode’s subplot revolved around the DHARMA film reel discovered by John Locke in a previous episode. While showing the film clip to Michael Dawson and Mr. Eko inside the DHARMA hatch (aka the Swan Station), the latter revealed a small reel of film he had found several days ago inside the empty DHARMA Arrow Station.
Most “LOST” fans tend to regard any episode Kate-centric episode with wary eyes. If I must be honest, most of the episodes featuring Kate Austen as a main character tend to range from decent to mediocre to piss poor. However, there are at least two or possibly three that have struck me as above-average. And “What Kate Did” happens to be one of them. Mind you, it had a few flaws. The episode never really hinted what led Kate to start thinking of her father in the first place. Was the island responsible for Sawyer being possessed by the spirit of Wayne Janssen? Did a badly wounded Sawyer, who reminded Kate of her father, brought back the memories of Wayne’s murder? Inquiring minds . . . well, my inquiring mind would still like to know. And why was U.S. Federal Marshal Edward Mars the one to arrest Kate at the bus station? Would she have to successfully flee across a state line in order to be hunted by a U.S. Marshal? Judging from the comments in many reviews for the episode, I noticed that many fans and critics were intrigued by the subplot featuring the DHARMA 16mm film. I was not. I was not intrigued when I first saw “What Kate Did”. And years later, I still remain bored. I was bored by Locke’s drama queen antics in his revealation of the film to Michael and Mr. Eko in the first place. I was bored by Eko’s little biblical story about King Judah. Looking back, I realize this subplot was basically another addition to the mystery about the Swan Station, which was revealed in late Season Five. But I do not care, because I found this subplot’s presentation rather dull. Only one aspect of this subplot struck me as interesting – namely Michael’s tinkering with the hatch’s computer, and the possibility that he may have contacted his kidnapped son at the end of the episode.
Surprisingly, it was the main plot regarding Kate’s backstory about the murder of her father that proved to be the episode’s backbone. Many fans had assumed that Kate had been forced to commit a crime on behalf of a loved one or framed for a major crime. As it turned out, Kate had committed murder with malice aforethought and a good deal of personal insecurity. I believe she had best revealed her reason for killing her father in the following infamous soliloquy:
“Can you hear me? Sawyer? — Wayne? [Sawyer stirs.] I’m probably crazy and this doesn’t matter, but maybe you’re in there somehow. But you asked me a question. You asked me why I — why I did it. It wasn’t because you drove my father away, or the way you looked at me, or because you beat her. It’s because I hated that you were a part of me — that I would never be good. That I would never have anything good. And every time that I look at Sawyer — every time I feel something for him — I see you, Wayne. It makes me sick.”.
The sad thing is that many fans – especially female fans – refused to accept Kate’s confession as the truth. Many began to speculate that “dear” Daddy Wayne had not only physically abuse his wife, Kate’s mother, but also sexually molested Kate when she was a child. Kate’s soliloquy and the rest of the series have never supported this. But many preferred to believe this theory than accept the fact that Kate had never been molested by her father. When the molestation theory failed to pan out, many decided that Kate had killed her father in order to protect Diane from further abuse. This theory became very popular after the Season Three episode, (3.15) “Left Behind” aired. Kate used this excuse to lie to her mother, but Diane had exposed her in the end. Nowadays, it is popular to deride Kate Austen as a badly written character. In a way, I agree . . . but for reasons that had nothing to do with Kate’s act of murder. Many had used the reason behind Kate’s murder of her father as a reason why she was badly written. Apparently, an act of cold-blooded murder by a television series’ leading female character is a no-no with fans. Sexism, even when exposed in the form of feminist sensibilities, reared its ugly head.
I have to give kudos to screenwriters Steven Maeda and Craig Wright for not exposing Kate’s motive for murdering her father. They revealed the actual murder at the beginning of the episode and spent the remainder slowly unveiling not only Kate’s family history, but also her motive. I found this narrative structure very clever. I was also impressed by how Maeda and Wright utilized another subplot about the aftereffects of Shannon’s death into the main story. It seemed that Kate’s murder of her father failed to wipe out her own personal insecurities. One particular scene in “What Kate Did” made it apparently clear that Kate had yet to overcome those insecurities. When Jack confronted her for leaving behind the seriously injured and unconscious Sawyer on the hatch’s floor, Kate responded in a vehement manner:
“Yeah, I’m sorry. I’m sorry that I am not as perfect as you! I’m sorry that I’m not as good!”
Fans are aware that Jack had suffered from his own insecurities due to the emotional abuse he had received from his father. But listening to those words come out of Kate’s mouth made wonder if part of her problems with Jack stemmed from this belief that he was some kind of figure of perfection. And if Sawyer reminded her of Wayne, why would she become emotionally attached to him, as well? Is it because she suspected that deep down, she shared a good number of character traits with her despised father? I have always felt so. Perhaps it was easier for Kate to bond with someone who strongly reminded her of Wayne, and through familial extension, herself. Who knows?
If there is one thing I cannot deny, “What Kate Did” featured some first-rate acting. Despite my annoyance at the subplot featuring the DHARMA film, it was easy for me to see that Terry O’Quinn, Harold Perrineau and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje gave fine performances. Naveen Andrews continued his superb portrayal of a grief stricken Sayid Jarrah. The episode featured solid, yet minonr performances from cast members like Daniel Dae Kim, Yunjin Kim, Josh Holloway, Jorge Garcia, Emilie de Ravin, Michelle Rodriguez, Cynthia Watros, L. Scott Caldwell, Sam Anderson and especially Dominic Monaghan. I certainly cannot complain about the performances from the episode’s guest stars. Beth Broderick, Lindsey Ginter and James Horan gave first-rate performances as Kate’s mother, step-father and father respectively. I was especially impressed with each actor/actress’ individual scenes with Evangeline Lilly. Fredric Lane continued his colorful performance as Kate’s nemesis, U.S. Marshal Edward Mars. However, there were moments I found his performance a little too theatrical.
The two best performances in the episode came from Matthew Fox and especially, Evangeline Lilly. Fox, was excellent, as always. I was especially impressed how he conveyed both Jack’s love for Kate and his frustration with her occasionally flaky behavior. Also, he and Lilly had a great kissing scene. I find this surprising, considering that when Season Two first aired, I never considered them as a really potential on-screen couple. However, Lilly proved to be the real surprise in this episode. I believe this is the first time she really proved her potential to be an excellent actress. She managed to convey the various emotions that Kate felt throughout the episode without resorting to mechanical acting tricks she utilized during the series’ first season.
I had a few complaints about “What Kate Did”. As I had earlier pointed out, one of them was the dull subplot featuring the DHARMA training film clip. I had noticed that no one had bothered to express concern for Walt Lloyd’s situation. And I found this very strange. My real disappointment with the episode happened off-screen and in the future. I feel that producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse did a piss poor and half-ass job in effectively developing and drawing the plot regarding Kate’s crime to a close. Despite these disappointment, I cannot deny that “What Kate Did” was a well-written episode that did an excellent job in exploring Kate’s personal demons and the crime that led to her becoming a fugitive, thanks to Steven Maeda and Craig Wright’s screenplay. Their work was helped not only by solid direction from Paul Edwards, but also excellent performances from a cast led by Evangeline Lilly and Matthew Fox.
“NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK I” (1985) – EPISODE THREE “1848-1854” Commentary
Episode Three of the 1985 miniseries, “NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK I”, immediately picked up where the previous episode left off. And unlike Episode Two, this particular episode stretches over a slightly longer period of time of six-and-a-half years – between the late winter of 1848 and the early summer of 1854.
This episode began less than 24 four hours after Episode Two left off. Following his resignation from the U.S. Army, George Hazard paid a visit to his friend Orry Main to inform the latter of his upcoming wedding to Constance Flynn and to invite Orry to serve as best man. In Episode Three, Orry escorts George to the local rail stop in order for the latter to catch a northbound passenger train. Before George’s train arrives, the two friends spot escaped Mont Royal slave Priam attempt to board a passing freight train. Orry prevents Priam’s escape. But as he prepares to shoot the slave in order to prevent the latter from enduring more punishment, George begs Orry to simply allow Priam to go. An angry Orry concedes to George’s request and Priam continues his escape to the North. About a month later, George marries Constance at a local Catholic chapel in Lehigh Station with Orry and the Hazard family in attendance. During the wedding reception, Maude Hazard announces that George and older brother Stanley will operate Hazard Iron together, while Stanley remains control of the finances. And Virgilia Hazard invites Orry to attend an abolitionist meeting where she is scheduled to serve as one of the speakers. Several months later, a major accident at Hazard Iron leads Maude to place financial control of the company in George’s hands, much to the consternation of Stanley and his shrewish wife, Isabel.
The story eventually jumps to the early 1850s, which finds the Main family and others attending the funeral of Tillet Main. One of the attendants is Orry’s Cousin Charles, who has been staying with the family since the death of his parents. Unbeknownst to Orry, sister Ashton has developed a slight lust toward her cousin. However, Charles is attracted to house slave Semiramis, much to the consternation of both Ashton and Jones. Speaking of the latter, he is fired by Orry, who now serves as master of Mont Royal; and later has a fight with Charles at a local tavern. Also, Charles has become involved with a local belle named Sue Marie Smith and is later challenged to a duel by her fiancé Whitney Smith. When Orry helps train Charles for the duel, the two cousins become close. He also suggests that Charles considers a career as an Army officer and arranges for Charles’ entry into the West Point Academy. Orry discovers during the Mains’ visit to Pennsylvania that George has made arrangements for younger brother Billy into the Academy, as well. Also during the South Carolina family’s visit, Virgilia incurs the wrath of her family and the Southern visitors with her comments about the recent Compromise of 1850. Also, George and Orry become partners in the construction of a cotton mill in South Carolina, to the pleasure of both Stanley and Isabel, who believe that George has made a serious mistake. This episode also features Madeline La Motte’s discovery of her husband’s sexual tryst with a slave, and encounters his wrath. George joins Constance in her activities with the Undercover Railroad. She also convinces him to bring Virgilia along with the Hazard family’s visit to Mont Royal by the end of the episode.
As one can see a great deal occurred in this episode. This is not surprising, considering that Episode Three has a longer time span than the other five episodes and stretches across the fringe of two decades. Because of this longer time span and the fact that so much occurred in this episode, I cannot help but wonder if this episode would have benefited from an additional 30-45 minutes. Speaking of time, this is the first time a major blooper regarding the saga’s time span. Following the accident at Hazard Iron in the summer of 1848, the story jumped five years to 1853. The reason this is impossible is that during the Mains’ visit to Pennsylvania a few months after Tillet Main’s funeral, both George and Orry revealed that their younger kinsmen – Billy Hazard and Charles Main – would be entering West Point later that fall. Like I said . . . this is impossible, considering that both Billy and Charles will graduate from West Point in 1856 in the following episode. There is no way in the world those two will spend only three years at the West Point Military Academy. Tillet Main’s death should have occurred either in late 1851 or early 1852. Another scene featured Madeline LaMotte stumbling across her husband Justin LaMotte in a tryst with a female slave at Salvation Chapel, where she and Orry usually meet. My question is . . . why on earth would LaMotte go out of his way to have a rendezvous with one of his slaves, when he could have easily went to her quarters or have her sent to his room?
Although the character of Semiramis has been featured since Episode One, this episode ended up being the only one in which she had a prominent speaking role. Naturally, Erica Gimpel was excellent in the role, I suspect that the writers only used her character in this episode as a set up for the expansion of her role in “NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II (1986) – including her attraction to Charles Main. I have a deep suspicion that Semiramis was more or less wasted in this miniseries, because Episode Three will prove to be her last appearance until the next miniseries. Perhaps the roles of Semiramis and the other slaves in “NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK I” could be seen as indicative of the writers and producers’ limited attempt to explore the impact of slavery in mid-19th century America. Perhaps I am being a bit too harsh. But the saga’s exploration of the African-American characters seemed a bit more broad in the second and third miniseries than it was in the first.
It did not help that both John Jakes and the writers who adapted his novel for television managed to create a major blooper regarding the institution of slavery. Both the novel and the miniseries featured an abolitionist meeting in Philadelphia where Virgilia Hazard proved to be one of the speakers. First of all, the producers hired actor Robert Guillaume to portrayed famous African-American abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, who also served as one of the meeting’s speakers. Mind you, Guillaume gave an excellent performance. But he was at least 57 when he appeared in this episode. But the abolitionist meeting occurred in the early spring of 1848 . . . when Douglass was just barely 30 years old. Fifty-seven . . . thirty. Hmmm . . . talk about a historical blooper. Virgilia’s speech centered on the topic of slave breeding. Naturally, Orry Main, who was at the meeting, expressed outrage and claimed that her accusations were false. Both George and Constance – who were also at the meeting – shared his feelings. Even Jakes seemed to support this belief in his novel. But despite her lurid words, Virgilia was right. Slave breeding was practiced in pre-Civil War America. Why would Jakes or the writers who wrote the miniseries treat this subject as some lurid fantasy in Virgilia’s mind?
Fortunately, Episode Three had its virtues. It featured another first-rate performance from Kirstie Alley as the volatile Virgilia Hazard. Not only did she give what I believe what was the best performance in the episode, she had at least two dazzling costumes:
Other cast members such as Patrick Swayze, James Read, Inga Swenson, Wendy Kilbourne, Jean Simmons, Jonathan Frakes, Erica Gimpel, Tony Franks, David Odgen Stiers and Wendy Fulton also gave excellent performances. However, it is obvious this episode, especially the 1850s sequences, were all about the younger generation. Actors John Stockwell, Genie Francis, Terri Garber and Lewis Smith made their debuts in this episode as Billy Hazard and the three younger Mains – Brett, Ashton and Charles. All four did a great job in establishing their characters. I was especially impressed by Francis and Garber who did an excellent job in establishing the complicated relationship between sisters Brett and Ashton Main in a delicious scene featured in their Mont Royal bedroom. There were other scenes that I found not only enjoyable, but well acted – the Hazard Iron accident, the Philadelphia abolitionist meeting (despite a few historical bloopers), Orry’s blooming relationship with his younger cousin Charles, Virgilia’s quarrel with Isabel Hazard and Ashton Main during the Mains’ Northern visit and Constance’s revelation of her Underground Railroad activities to George. The episode ended with a deliciously funny scene between Read and Alley, when Virgilia convinces brother George to allow her to accompany the family south to Mont Royal.
With Virgilia and the rest of the Hazards leaving Lehigh Station for their trip to South Carolina, the story is set to get even more interesting in the next episode. And I cannot wait to see what will happen.
“STAR TREK VOYAGER” RETROSPECTIVE: (3.25) “Worst Case Scenario”
Some time ago, I had posted a list of my top ten favorite episodes of “STAR TREK VOYAGER” (1995-2001). After re-examining my list, I was surprised to discover that the Season Three episode, (3.25) “Worst Case Scenario” was not on it.
In this penultimate episode of Season Three, B’Elanna Torres discovers a Holodeck program in which Commander Chakotay and the former Maquis crewmen stage a mutiny against Captain Janeway and the rest of Voyager’s crew. Torres’ participation in the program is interrupted by Tom Paris, who reminds her of their lunch date. He eventually becomes interested and participates in the program himself. After his first participation in the program, Paris and Torres discover that other members of the crew have also been enjoying it. But Paris’ second participation in the Holodeck program reveals that it had not been completed by its mysterious author. During a meeting, the senior staff discovers that Voyager’s Security Chief, Tuvok, had created the program (which he called “Insurrection Alpha”)as a training session for the junior members of his Security staff during the ship’s first months in the Delta Quadrant. As the Maquis and Starfleet factions of the crew began to merge, Tuvok decided to abandon the program.
Due to the crew’s enthusiasm toward “Insurrection Alpha”, Paris and Tuvok agree to expand the program into a complete holonovel. As the two officers begin to edit the original program, they suddenly find themselves trapped behind a forcefield in a simulation of the ship’s brig. A holographic version of the deceased Seska, a former Cardassian spy, appears and explains that before she had escaped the ship to join the Kazon back in Season One, she rewrote the simulation as a virtual deathtrap for Tuvok. Some of the real Voyager’s systems – like the transporter and communication systems, along with the Holodeck’s safety protocols) go offline. And Paris and Tuvok are forced to endure one hazardous situation after another as they try to stay alive.
After my recent viewing of both “Worst Case Scenario” and my top ten episode list, I discovered that I could not change the latter. However . . . if I had created a list of my twenty favorite “VOYAGER” episodes, “Worst Case Scenario” would have ranked at #11. Yes, it is that good. The Holodeck proved to be an excellent creation for STAR TREK writers to use for some first rate episodes. “STAR TREK NEXT GENERATION” had episodes like (2.03) “Elementary, Dear Data” and (3.21) “Hollow Pursuits”. “STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE” had the delicious (4.10) “Our Man Bashir” and (6.18) “Inquisition”. However, in my opinion, “STAR TREK VOYAGER” has aired some of the best Holodeck episodes I have ever come across. And one of those episodes is “Worst Case Scenario”.
Kenneth Biller did an excellent job of giving viewers a glimpse of the tenuous situation between the two factions aboard Voyager during its early months in the Delta Quadrant. Even more importantly, the “Insurrection Alpha” could be viewed as an ominous warning of what could have happened if the crew had failed to integrate during those early months. It is ironic that this episode aired over three years before Season Seven’s (7.04) “Repression” – which featured an actual Maquis rebellion unwittingly instigated by Tuvok, of all people. Tuvok’s program also featured the crew’s only Talaxian, Neelix, joining the rebellion. The real Neelix commented that Tuvok had incorrectly read his character during those early days. A reviewer named Jim Wright agreed. However, I have my doubts. I can recall Neelix’s numerous complaints about Janeway’s tendency to interrupt their journey for an exploration of planet or system during the series’ first season. And I can recall one or two occasions in which the Talaxian cook and the Starfleet captain had clashed. I suspect that Tuvok had a pretty good jibe on Neelix’s character back in those days.
Normally, I could claim that “Worst Case Scenario” focused on the entire crew. After all, the episode began with Torres discovering the program and ended with Janeway declaring herself as more than a starship captain, but a community leader as well. However, I noticed that the ship’s chief pilot, Tom Paris, was featured in more scenes than any one else . . . which is why I tend to view him as the episode’s main character. I read somewhere that actor Robert Duncan McNeill considered “Worst Case Scenario” as one of his favorite episodes of the show’s first three seasons. And I can see why. Biller had produced a well written script that allowed McNeill to engage in some of his funniest work. I could also say the same for actor Tim Russ, who portrayed the stoic Tuvok. McNeill and Russ also proved that their screen teaming in (3.08-3.09) “Future’s End” was no mere fluke. They had a strong chemistry that allowed their characters to create one of the best comedic teams in science-fiction television.
But despite Robbie McNeill and Tim Russ’ dominance in this episode, other cast members were given the opportunity to shine. Ethan Phillips gave a charming performance as Neelix, whose enthusiasm for “Insurrection Alpha” almost seemed to bubble. Roxann Dawson provided one of the funniest moments in B’Elanna’s caustic reaction to Paris’ suggestion of a passionate romance between the ship’s chief engineer and chief pilot. Robert Baltran was able to capture both the holographic Chakotay’s determination to rebel against the holographic Janeway and the real Chakotay’s sly and humorous reaction to his role in Tuvok’s story. Bob Picardo was both funny and chilling as the Doctor in the holoprogram. Both Kate Mulgrew and Garrett Wang gave solid support as Captain Janeway and Harry Kim. But Martha Hackett’s return as Seska, the former Bajoran Maquis that turned out to be a Cardassian spy, proved to be a real pleasure. She was deliciously villainous as ever, confirming by belief that her Seska might be one of the best television villains around. And her holographic death in this episode proved to be more rewarding that her real death in (3.01) “Basics, Part II”.
I realize that “STAR TREK VOYAGER” is much reviled by many TREK fans. And I also realize that many would be very reluctant to accept my belief that the series had aired some of the best Holodeck episodes in the franchise. But whether they would agree with me or not, no one could ever convince me that an original episode like “Worst Case Scenario” was overrated, or at best, barely tolerable.
Claudia's Journal 
