Two October Films

Early in October we watched two movies which were perfect for getting into the mood for Halloween. Actually I have never been a great fan of Halloween as an adult, but it does feature skulls and skeletons, so it isn't all bad.

The first one was Arsenic and Old Lace, a very funny, over the top story, set at Halloween, with trick or treaters, and a cemetery nearby. Mortimer, played by Cary Grant, is an author of books about being the perennial bachelor, but has just fallen in love and married the girl next door (Priscilla Lane). She is the daughter of the vicar who lives next door to his aunts; the newlyweds return to her home to get her luggage and go off on their honeymoon.

There are so many riotous events going on throughout the movie. Teddy (John Alexander), Mortimer's brother, thinks he is Teddy Roosevelt and Mortimer has been trying to get him moved to a home because his aunts are getting older. And while Mortimer visits his aunts (Josephine Hull and Jean Adair) he discovers that they have been involved in dispatching unhappy old men to their deaths. He realizes that everyone in his family is insane. And then his evil older brother (Raymond Massey) shows up, with his sidekick (Peter Lorre), a doctor who has performed plastic surgery to change to his appearance. That brief description doesn't come close to covering all the shenanigans going on in this film.

We are big fans of Cary Grant. In my opinion he can do no wrong. One thing I read about this film is that Cary Grant did not like his performance. He felt like it was too over the top. I never questioned his extreme reactions; after all, how would you react to finding out that the two sweet innocent women who raised you were murderers, even if they meant well?

In addition to the main actors, there are several wonderful actors in this film playing small parts. James Gleason, who played the Inspector in the Hildegarde Withers movies based on Stuart Palmer's mystery series, plays a police lieutenant. Jack Carson plays a rookie cop who also has written a play and seeks Mortimer's advice. Edward Everett Horton is the manager of the Happydale Sanatorium that plans to take in Teddy.

Yvette at In So Many Words has done a wonderful post on Arsenic and Old Lace, going into much more detail than I ever could. With tons of pictures included. Please check it out.

The second movie is The Mummy, the 1999 version with Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz (which bears no resemblance at all to the original 1932 movie). This is billed on the DVD case as a "nonstop action thriller," with thrills and suspense. I won't argue with that, but the humor is what sets this movie apart for me.

Rachel Weisz plays British librarian Evelyn with expertise in Egyptian artifacts. Her brother (John Hannah) has found one that he hopes is valuable, and it supposedly was found by an American adventurer, Rick O'Connell (Brendan Fraser) in a lost city, Hamunaptra. Rick takes Evelyn and her brother to the lost city and there are many adventures, and some romance, along the way. When they reach the lost city, a mummy is awakened.

Two smaller roles I liked were the curator of the museum that Evelyn works in (played by Erik Avari) and a former soldier who was in the Foreign Legion with Rick (played by Kevin J. O'Connor).

Roger Ebert's review groups this film in with some other "preposterous adventure movies" and gives it a decent review. Jame Berardinelli at Reelviews describes it as "a big-budget, high profile effort in the vein of Sam Raimi's Army of Darkness with less camp and better special effects."

There is a tenuous link between these movies. The original 1932 version of The Mummy starred Boris Karloff. Boris Karloff also played Mortimer's evil older brother in Arsenic and Old Lace in the Broadway production, but was not available for the movie.

Hopscotch (book and film)

Hopscotch is an intelligent spy thriller, published in 1975, which won author Brian Garfield the Edgar Award for Best Novel from the Mystery Writer’s of America.

Description at MysteriousPress.com:

Bored with retirement, an ex-spy challenges his old agency to a game

Miles Kendig is one of the CIA’s top deep-cover agents, until an injury ruins him for active duty. Rather than take a desk job, he retires. But the tawdry thrills of civilian life—gambling, drinking, sex—offer none of the pleasures of the intelligence game. Even a Russian agent’s offer to go to work against his old employers seems dull. Without the thrill of unpredictable conflict, Kendig skulks through Paris like the walking dead.

To revive himself, he begins writing a tell-all memoir, divulging every secret he accumulated in his long career. Neither CIA nor KGB can afford to have it in print, and so he challenges them both: Until they catch him, a chapter will go to the publisher every week. Kendig’s life is fun again, with survival on the line.

Kendig sends the first chapter of his book to various publishers in many countries. Soon the hunt begins to find Miles Kendig and terminate him. Although most of the agents involved in the hunt are depicted as ruthless, self-serving, and unimaginative, there are some great characters in this book. The agent heading the hunt for Kendig is Cutter; Kendig was his mentor. He does not question the need to silence Kendig, but he does have a sympathetic role. Cutter brings in a younger agent (Leonard Ross) as his assistant in the chase; Ross learns a lot in the course of the book and has some scruples.

The book begins with these two quotes:

hopscotch, n. A children's game in which a player moves a small object into one compartment of a rectangular diagram chalked on the pavement, then hops on one foot from compartment to compartment without touching a chalk line, and picks up the object while standing on one foot in an adjacent compartment.

scotch (2), v.t.  to crush or stamp out, as something dangerous; to injure so as to render harmless.

I saw the film first and that was what inspired me to read the book. I did not do much research about the book before reading it, so I was surprised to find that the book was very dark. Kendig is very serious about his self-imposed mission. He is angry and outraged at the CIA's behavior.

I love this two-part cover but there isn't really much gunplay (if any) in the book. The story is more a cat-and-mouse game in an espionage setting.

Kendig reviews what he has written so far.

    The book was a brusque account of facts assembled in chains. It struck him now for the first time that what he was writing was essentially a moral outcry and that impressed him as a curious thing because he hadn’t had that in mind. Yet it was unquestionably an outraged narrative despite its matter-of-fact tone. When he made this discovery it caused him to realize that he must add something to the book that he had not intended including: there had to be a memoir, a self-history (however brief) to establish his bona-fides -- not his credentials or sources but his motives.

    The book had become more than a gambit; it had been born of him and now claimed its own existence. In no way did that negate the game itself; but he saw that in order to maintain the illusion of freedom he had to complete the book not as a means but as an end. Otherwise it was only a sham -- toy money, counters on a game board. It had earned for itself the right to be much more than that; and if he failed in this new responsibility it made the game meaningless.

There is a side trip to Birmingham, Alabama, which was fun for me.  I had left Alabama only a couple of years before the book was published.

     But he'd need certain things when he began his run and they weren't obtainable in the backwoods. The nearest cities were Atlanta and Birmingham and he decided on Birmingham because he knew its workings.
     It was September seventeenth, a Tuesday. The drive took nearly seven hours. At two in the afternoon he saw the industrial smudge on the sky and at half-past three he was parking the car against the curb on a hill as steep as anything in San Francisco. He spent the next hour buying articles of clothing, luggage, cosmetics, automobile spray-paint, a leather-workers sewing awl and a few other items. The city was acrid with coal fumes from the great steel furnaces. Its faces were predominantly black.

This is one of those books (and films) that I just want to gush about. I loved both but they were very different. The book has a dark and cynical tone;  the film is a comic thriller. I thought both worked equally well. When I was reading the book, I thought the book was better; when I was watching the film, I preferred that version.

The film is much lighter in tone, even including added romance that fits into the story perfectly because of the change in tone. Walter Matthau is perfect as Miles Kendig. Glenda Jackson has a wonderful role as a former agent that Kendig had worked with and been quite fond of. That character did not exist in the book. There are other minor changes from book to film, but the essence of the book and the plot are there. It is just that the tone is very different. Cutter is played by Sam Waterston and his CIA boss by Ned Beatty. Bryan Garfield  was one of the screenwriters for the film and was involved in filming.

There is a 21-minute introduction to the film included on the Criterion Collection disc that we have. It features Brian Garfield and the director, Ronald Neame, talking about the development and shooting of the film. The music in the film is very nice. Neame mentions that Mozart is a favorite of Matthau's; he suggested a piece for one of the scenes. Their stories of the making of the film are very interesting.

There is much more to read about the book and the film in this review of the book at Col's Criminal Library, and this review of the film at In So Many Words. Both of these posts have much more detail on what is so special about the book and the film.

 -----------------------------

Publisher:   Fawcett Crest, 1976 (first published 1975)
Length:       303 pages
Format:      Trade paperback
Setting:      USA, UK, France
Genre:        Espionage Fiction
Source:       I purchased my copy.

The Monuments Men (film)

Recently I reviewed the non-fiction book The Monuments Men by Robert M. Edsel.  As I said in my review, I had mixed feelings about the book. It wasn't an easy read but I liked learning about the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives program and the efforts to preserve and recover pieces of art and other cultural artifacts during and following World War II.

My husband and I were interested in the film of the same name, a fictionalized version of events in the book. On initial viewing we were disappointed. I suspect that our expectations were too high. On a second viewing we enjoyed it more, even though it still has its problems.

The basic facts in the film are true. How the group was put together was fairly accurate although I think I read that George Stout did not get to choose the men he was working with. But a lot of dramatic license was taken with many of the events, and I did not care for that. It was a very light movie, with little substance.

The characters in the film do not have the names of the real persons who did the work. For most of the characters, you can make an educated guess as to which character in the movie corresponds to the real life person profiled in the book. In some cases, there was no correspondence.

The film would have been better served by using less well known actors. The character played by George Clooney in the film corresponded to George Stout and I think he fit the role very well. But pairing him with Matt Damon made portions of the film seem like another version of Ocean's Eleven. I love Bill Murray and Bob Balaban, and the other actors were very good, but I could not forget who they were and see them as real persons in a wartime setting. There was a lot of humor in the film. There is humor in real life too, but in this case I felt like it trivialized the importance of the story.

Cate Blanchette was marvelous in the role of Claire Simone, an employee at the Jeu de Paume Museum in Paris who had records of the location of many of the artifacts that were spirited out of Paris. The real-life person was Rose Valland, and I would have liked to see more of her role emphasized, without throwing in a hint at romantic involvement (which did not happen).

Overall, I am glad that both the book and the film adaptation are available. Many people who will not read the book might see the movie. I am glad this information is being publicized more, even though it would have been nice if it had been done when more of the original Monuments Men were still alive.

The most important thing for me to say about this film is that I wish my father could have seen it. My father was a World War II veteran who served in the Air National Guard for many years following the war. He was called up and sent to France and Germany for a year when the Berlin Wall went up. He was proud of serving his country and he loved art. He loved to go to museums and he visited several when he was in France and Germany that year. I have many childhood and adult memories of him looking through and reading books of European art and the history of World War II. He would have loved this film.

Resources:
At Slate.com this article asks How Accurate is The Monuments Men?

Enigma (film)

Enigma is a film by Michael Apted that was released in 2001, based on the 1995 novel by Robert Harris. Both are fictionalized accounts of the British code-breaking efforts at Bletchley Park in 1943.  Tom Jericho (Dougray Scott) played a big part in breaking an important code earlier; now he is returning to Bletchley Park after a nervous breakdown to take part in a new effort, although there are indications that he is just there for show. His girlfriend Claire (Saffron Burrows) is missing, and he and Claire's roommate Hester (Kate Winslet) try to solve the mystery of her disappearance.

I recently read the book and enjoyed it very much; my review is here.

Did I enjoy the film?

This was my second viewing of the film. I don't remember that much from the first viewing and I suspect I might have enjoyed it more if I had read the book first. This time around I did enjoy it very much. I liked the acting. In addition to the main actors mentioned above, I enjoyed the acting of Jeremy Northam as an intelligence agent, Tom Hollander as another member of the code-breaking team, and Matthew Macfadyen as a naval officer who had been badly burned.

One negative aspect of a book to film review is that I usually read the book and watch the film back to back. In that situation, I tend to nitpick at details while watching the film. This second viewing may have been one of those times when I was watching too much for discrepancies and not immersing myself in the film enough. Regardless, overall I liked a lot about the film and we will be watching it again.

Did the film represent the book fairly or well?

Some reviewers noted places where the film was not true to historical facts. Both the book and the film were supposed to be fiction, so that was not a problem for me. I don't know much of the real history of Bletchley or the code breaking effort, so I wasn't looking for errors, nor was I expecting to learn the strict facts of what happened from either the book or the film.

I was disappointed that the character of Hester Wallace was so changed in the film. Both versions show the discrepancy between the roles of women and men in work like this, and emphasize Hester's frustration at doing more clerical work, and not having the opportunity to work on code breaking. However, the nature of Hester's and Tom's relationship is very different in the book. I prefer not to go into more detail about that for the benefit of those who have not seen the book or the film. Overall, I did not feel that this change marred the film.

While a film usually cannot get into the characters and their relationships (and thoughts) as well as a book does, a film can portray action in a clearer and more effective way. The war scenes that can only be imagined while reading the book are given more reality in the film version.

Given that changes are always necessary to make a novel conform to the needs of film, I found the changes made for this film acceptable. The film focused much more on the espionage subplot, and spent less time portraying actual conditions at Bletchley. I like the portrayal of characters and relationships better in the book. The film had more to offer in action and pacing. I felt that both stood well on their own.

This film review is submitted for the 2014 Book to Movie Challenge at Doing Dewey.

World War Z: Max Brooks

I do not like zombies. I do not like books or movies about zombies. So why did I read World War Z? Mainly because my husband recommended it, and based on his description, I was curious. The subtitle is "An Oral History of the Zombie War," and that describes the book pretty well.

This is the first paragraph in the book, which introduces us to the catastrophic events that have happened:

It goes by many names: “The Crisis,” “The Dark Years,” “The Walking Plague,” as well as newer and more “hip” titles such as “World War Z” or “Z War One.”  I personally dislike this last moniker as it implies an inevitable “Z War Two.”  For me, it will always be “The Zombie War,” and while many may protest the scientific accuracy of the word zombie, they will be hard pressed to discover a more globally accepted term for the creatures that almost caused our extinction. Zombie remains a devastating word, unrivaled in its power to conjure up so many memories or emotions, and it is these memories, and emotions, that are the subject of this book.

The book is presented as a compilation of interviews with survivors of the Zombie War. It is divided into sections covering different time periods in the conflict, starting with Warnings. That section has interviews with people from China, Tibet, Greece, Brazil, the West Indies, Israel and Palestine, all talking about first occurrences or encounters with the zombies.

Although each section covers some time frame in the Zombie War, what the reader really sees is what life is like in the present, ten years after the population of earth has been largely destroyed. It is clear that the threat is not totally gone, just under control enough to allow people to return to some semblance of a normal life.

Some reviewers found this book unsatisfactory because there is no continuing story, with characters that you can get to know. That is a valid point, but my take was that was what made the book so fresh and engrossing. It is true that each section was fairly short and just as you were getting into the story, it was over and I wanted to know more, to hang around.

This is my husband's review from Goodreads:

Zombies are the perfect nightmare villain. They are relentless, they can't be influenced, and in the case of this book, they number in the tens of millions.
This work, consisting entirely of interviews with survivors of the Zombie War, is so engrossing that it could have gone on for twice its length and never lost my interest.
Maps would have been a welcome addition (as in any history of any war) but that is a very minor quibble.

You can see that we both enjoyed the book, even though he likes zombies and I don't.

I haven't included many facts about the book other than the structure. I prefer to let the reader discover for themselves the good and the bad. However, I will point you to a good review at SF Site, if you want more details.  Also, another useful review at Atomic Spud.

And how was the movie?

The movie adaptation of World War Z stars Brad Pitt as a former employee of the United Nations who gets called back to his old job when the world is overrun with zombies. The movie bears little resemblance to the book. The movie is an action thriller, with zombies invading all countries of the world. In the movie, the zombies move very fast (different from most zombie movies I have seen, although I am far from an expert). In the book, the zombies are slow. That does not prevent them from overrunning the world, however. There are many, many other differences between book and movie and it is pretty safe to say that they basically just used the same title.

Brad Pitt's character, Gerry Lane, is a reluctant hero; he has left his job to spend time with his family and has no desire to go on expeditions to find a cure for the zombie problem. When it is clear that he and his family will lose their protected status if he does not cooperate, he gives in. And a plus is that he is not a superhero with no vulnerabilities. He is pretty much a normal guy, just clever and motivated to find some solution to the problem.

We watched the movie twice. The first time was before I had read the book, the second was after. The movie was enjoyable both times, but I liked it even better the second time. It has its flaws, but whether you will like it or not depends on what you are looking for. It is not a typical zombie movie, and that is what the viewer wants, it could be disappointing. It is a decent action flick.

I said at the beginning that I don't like zombie movies. I have watched and enjoyed two silly, humorous takes on zombie movies, Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland. I don't like the blood and gore in those movies, but they are fun movies if you can get beyond that. I did appreciate in this movie that there was no blood and little gore. The concept of zombies with no blood does agree with the book.

In this interview, Max Brooks talks about the book and the film.

 -----------------------------

Publisher:  Crown Publishers, 2006
Length:      342 pages
Format:      hardcover
Setting:       worldwide
Genre:        science fiction, apocalyptic
Source:       Borrowed from my husband

Max Brooks wrote an earlier book about zombies in 2003, The Zombie Survival Guide. I have not read that book, but I understand that it is a parody of survival guides. He is the son of director and producer Mel Brooks and actress Anne Bancroft. I did not know this until after I read the book and watched the movie twice, so it had no bearing on my decision to give the book a try.  The author only mentions his father in the acknowledgments to World War Z in this way: "and Dad, for 'the human factor'." His website does not mention his parents, so he is not trading on their fame. The acknowledgments also include "a final thank-you to the three men whose inspiration made this book possible: Studs Terkel, the late General Sir John Hackett, and, of course, the genius and terror of George A. Romero."

The Hobbit, Parts I and II

I don't think we need another review of the two recent movie adaptations (parts 1 and 2 of a planned trilogy) of The Hobbit. I am not the best qualified person to review them anyway. These are just my personal reactions to the first and second parts of the trilogy of movies.

The Hobbit is a fantasy novel by J. R. R. Tolkien, published in 1937. It also is a book directed at children. However, it has been read and cherished by many adults. Gandalf talks Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit, into going on a quest with 13 dwarfs to find a lost jewel that will restore their homeland. The jewel is guarded by a huge, fierce dragon who took their home and destroyed the towns around their mountain. [If you are very familiar with the story, I am sure this leaves out a lot of important points. I have read the book but that was many, many years ago.]

The novel has been adapted in three fantasy adventure films directed by Peter Jackson. Part 1 is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Part 2 is The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. Both of these have already been released. The third part will be The Hobbit: There and Back Again and should come out later this year.

To start with, I enjoyed the two movies because of the acting. Martin Freeman is always good, and he is very effective in the role of Bilbo Baggins. Ian McKellan played the role of Gandalf in the Lord of the Ring movies, and he is just as good here. I like Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, the exiled king of the dwarfs. In the second part, there is a female Wood-Elf, Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly. This was a role that did not exist in the book. I thought this was a good addition to the story and liked Lilly's acting.

I enjoyed seeing the first two movies so close together because it was very clear how much Bilbo Baggins has matured as the group continues their quest. In the first part he is a reluctant member of the group and resented by some of the members of the group. In the second, he has accepted that he misses home and its comforts, but feels that he can help the dwarfs recover their home and is committed to seeing the adventure through to the end, no matter how dangerous.

I did not realize coming into the movie that the movie had revisions or additions not in the book. There are characters that are important in the movies but do not exist in the book. I am more used to movies where plot lines or characters are excised for lack of time to cover them. This did not bother me. Some of the additional characters were characters I especially enjoyed, as mentioned above, so I would hate to lose them.

I look forward to seeing the final movie. This won't happen until it comes to Blu-Ray and DVD, because we don't go to theaters to see movies. So, it will be a while. I am sure that movie will live up to the first two parts and the conclusion will be handled well.

This is my second submission for Once Upon a Time VIII.

In the Heat of the Night (film)

In the Heat of the Night is a film adaptation of the book of the same name, written by John Ball. The book was published in 1965 and the film was released just two years later. The film starred Sidney Poitier, who had won an Oscar for Best Actor in 1964, and Rod Steiger, who won the Oscar for Best Actor for this film. In the Heat of the Night won four other Oscars, including Best Picture.

In the opening of the movie, Sam Wood, a police officer in a small town in the South, is patrolling the streets and finds a body. Bill Gillespie, the chief of police, sends Sam to several areas to look for suspicious characters. At the railway station, Sam finds a nicely dressed black man, Virgil Tibbs, waiting for a train, and arrests him because he has a large amount of cash in his wallet. Eventually it is determined that Tibbs is a homicide cop from Philadelphia and he is coerced into helping out with the investigation.

After reading the novel, I watched this movie again. I had not watched it for a couple of years. I like this movie a lot. Rod Steiger and Sidney Poitier were both very good in their roles. I felt like it was a good depiction of the racial prejudices in the South at that time. I did not grow up in a small town, nor did I spend much time in small towns, but I did have relatives that lived in Batesville, Mississippi, a town about the same size as the one in this movie (in the 1960's). The town in the movie seemed realistic to me. I cannot speak to the racial attitudes or tensions at that time in a town like that; but I would guess the scenes in the film were realistic, especially as the 1960's was a time of civil rights demonstrations and unrest.

There are differences between the book and the movie, although the basic story and the intent of the book and the film are the same. The book was set in Wells, South Carolina; the movie is set in Sparta, Mississippi. (The movie was actually filmed in Sparta, Illinois.) The detective, Virgil Tibbs, is from Pasadena, California in the book, and has a much milder manner. In the movie he is from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and is much more confrontational. In the movie, the main characters are the Chief of Police and Tibbs. Gillespie’s role in the book is minor compared to Sam Woods, his deputy. None of these changes made a huge impact on the story, and probably worked better for the film.

The movie showed more thuggish behavior on the part of townspeople; the novel was more about the shabby treatment Tibbs received from the police and the townspeople, solely based on his color. A key scene in the movie is the visit of Tibbs and Gillespie to the Endicott mansion, where Tibbs is treated poorly. In the book, Mr. Endicott is a highly respected member of the community, originally from the North, and the host of the murder victim; he is not racially prejudiced, and requests that Tibbs continue to help with the investigation.

What I liked about the book over the movie was the role of Sam Woods. The book lets us see a slow transformation as Sam begins to see Tibbs as a human being, and an intelligent, worthy colleague. Although the relationship between Tibbs and Gillespie develops throughout the movie, I found the changes less convincing. Nevertheless, I enjoyed both versions. My review of the book is here.

There is much more interesting background on this film. See this article on 25 Things You Didn't Know About the Sidney Poitier Classic. It is noted in that article that Poitier did not want to film in Mississippi because he and Harry Belafonte had run into some problems while visiting there.

This book and movie review is submitted for Katie’s 2014 Book to Movie Challenge at Doing Dewey.

Under the Dragon's Tail: Maureen Jennings

This is the second book in the Murdoch Mysteries series, published by Maureen Jennings in 1998, and featuring William Murdoch, an Acting Detective in Toronto in the late 1800's.  I enjoyed the first book in the series, Except the Dying (1997), and I liked this one even more.

Maureen Jennings does a wonderful job of portraying Victorian-era Toronto. As described in this article, she did extensive research into the time period. But in addition to the convincing picture of the times, we also get well-developed and interesting characters. Without dwelling on Murdoch's past, the author conveys how his childhood has affected him, and his continuing grief for his fiancee who died of typhoid, at the same time he yearns for a relationship with a woman. Maybe he is a tad too perfect, but I can live with that. Constable George Crabtree, and several of the suspects at varying levels of society are also well-defined; their portrayals contribute to the overall portrait of the city, its poverty and its inhabitants.

Getting to the mystery, the detective and his constable are investigating the death of a former midwife, living with her grown daughter and two foster children. The suspects come from a well-to-do family and from the lower echelons of society. To the reader, it is somewhat obvious who the culprit is likely to be, yet the author kept me guessing. And the story had a very good pace, never lagging.

In 2004, three made-for-TV movies were produced and televised, based on the first three books in the series. Later, in 2008, a television series (with new actors in the parts) began and has continued for seven seasons.  I watched the TV movies and a few episodes of the 2008 series before I read the books. As I read the first two books in this series, my only disappointment has been that the forensics that are emphasized in the TV movie adaptations were not featured more in the books (those that I have read so far). Dr. Julia Ogden, who is featured in both the TV movies and the later TV series, only shows up briefly in this second book. Nevertheless, I found this book to be very enjoyable on its own merits.

Under the Dragon's Tail (2004), Shaftesbury Films Inc., Toronto, Ontario
Cast: Peter Outerbridge, Flora Montgomery, Matthew MacFadzean

The three made-for-TV movies were televised in a slightly different order than the first three books. Under the Dragon's Tail is the second book in the series; the adaptation of this story was the third movie televised. Dr. Julia Odgen features heavily in the first two movies, but is only mentioned in the this adaptation.

The TV movie based on this book is a fine adaptation, but it does change the story quite a bit. The basic outline of the story is retained, and the picture of Toronto in the 1890's is well done. There is, however, much more emphasis on forensics, such as the use of fingerprints, or finger marks as they are called in the movie. This was an emerging science at the time, and an interesting topic to introduce into the story. My take on adaptations of books or series is that sometimes you end up with something entirely different, but that can be fine as long as the adaptation works well on its own. I think this one does. I don't want to go into more detail about the differences in the movie, so that I don't spoil it for anyone who ends up watching the movie (or reading the book).

This book and movie review is submitted for Katie’s 2014 Book to Movie Challenge at Doing Dewey and for the 7th annual Canadian Book Challenge sponsored by John Mutford at The Book Mine Set.

Christmas Films Watched

On Christmas Day, we planned to watch three movies with a Christmas theme. We ended up watching two on Christmas Day, and the third one on the day after Christmas.

First up was the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version of Santa Claus Conquers the Martians. The basic plot of the movie is that a group of Martians kidnap Santa Claus because their children are sad and they have been told that Santa Claus can make them happy. Unfortunately two earth children are kidnapped too. The rest of the story takes place on Mars, with Santa setting up a workshop and the kids helping him produce toys for the children of Mars.

If you are not familiar with Mystery Science Theater 3000, also known as MST3K, this was a television show that first was carried by Comedy Central and then later picked up by the Sci-Fi Channel.  The basic premise at the beginning of the show was: a man has been sent to space in a satellite, creates two comical robots, and is forced by the evil scientists to watch bad movies. They comment on the movies, and do several skits each show. The show ran from Thanksgiving Day, 1988 (starting out at KTMA in Minneapolis, Minnesota) to August 1999.

The movie, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, is aimed at children and is hilarious and without logic. Pia Zadora had her first role in a movie as the Martian daughter. That alone makes it worth watching. The skits on the satellite are fun. To fit the shows format, a small amount of the movie is cut.

Our other two Christmas movies were more traditional -- Holiday Inn and The Man Who Came to Dinner.

Holiday Inn, released in 1942, is a favorite because it has Fred Astaire and tap dancing and some great songs by Irving Berlin. Many of the songs were written expressly for the movie, including "White Christmas." Although the movie covers all the holidays in the year, it starts and ends at Christmas.

The film also stars Bing Crosby, Marjorie Reynolds, and Walter Abel. Astaire and Crosby both play cads who are competing for Reynold's attentions. Crosby and Astaire have a song and dance act and Crosby wants to retire to the country. He sets up his farmhouse as "Holiday Inn," where he will have shows only on holidays, fifteen days a year. Reynolds plays in the shows, is discovered by Astaire and he tries to steal her away.

The photo above shows Crosby and Reynolds singing White Christmas, one of my favorite scenes in the movie.

On the day following Christmas, we watched The Man Who Came to Dinner. This film, also released in 1942, is a comedy based on a stage play  by Moss Hart and George S. Kaufman. Its stage origins are obvious, because almost all of the scenes in the movie are played in one room.




Radio personality Sheridan Whiteside (played by Monty Woolley) slips on the icy steps of the house of the Stanleys (Grant Mitchell and Billie Burke). He had merely come to dinner (under protest), and because of injuries sustained, insists on recuperating in their home during the Christmas holidays. Under threat of an expensive suit, he takes over their home, banishing the family to the upstairs rooms. He and his overbearing ways come to have an effect on the family members and others who visit the home. Sometimes negative, sometimes positive. 

One of my favorite characters in the film is played by Bette Davis, in an uncharacteristic performance. She plays Whiteside's assistant. There is a romantic subplot when she meets a hometown newspaperman, and Whiteside tries to undermine the romance using the charms of an actress, played by Ann Sheridan.

We also have a fondness for Christmassy action movies. We often watch Die Hard or Lethal Weapon at Christmas, because Christmas figures into the story. This year, a few days before Christmas, we watched Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, released in 2005, and starring Robert Downey Jr., Val Kilmer, and Michelle Monaghan. This movie is a mixture of genres: a noir thriller with comedy and romance, with allusions to Raymond Chandler's books and based partly on Brett Halliday's novel Bodies Are Where You Find Them. The story isn't very realistic but it is lots of fun, and Downey and Kilmer have great chemistry.

The poster for Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is from enigmabadger via Flickr.

To Kill a Mockingbird (film)

To Kill a Mockingbird is a movie adaptation of Harper Lee's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel of the same name. The movie covers one year in the life of two children, Jem and Scout, who live in a small town in Alabama in the 1930's. Their father is a lawyer and is defending a black man against the charge of rape. (My review of the book is here.)

There are differences between the book and the movie. One is fairly minor. The book covers three years; Scout is six and Jem, her older brother, is ten at the beginning of the novel. Both she and Jem mature throughout the book and Jem has moved into puberty at the end, which changes their relationship. The other is that Aunt Alexandra does not appear in the movie. In the book, Aunt Alexandra moves in with Atticus and the children to provide a strong female influence on Scout. She  introduces the emphasis in the South on living within the constrictions of the social mores and one's station in life.

This does not detract from the movie. It just means that the movie looks more at the racial aspects of the South and less at other areas of Southern life. The trial and the build up to the trial are the focus of the movie. I can understand why this decision was made. You can't always include every element of a book and still have a good movie.

 

I think I would have enjoyed the movie more if I had put more distance between it and reading the book. I kept making direct comparisons and noting differences that would not have occurred to me otherwise.

Nevertheless, I preferred the movie. This was because of my personal reaction to the book and the way the happenings in the book resonated with my own childhood and my personal experiences in that environment, and is no reflection on the quality of the book. The movie presented some of the same ideas, but did not impact me in the same way.

The book concentrated more on racism and its side effects for all involved, and the trial that threatened to tear apart the community. The story in the book focuses more on Scout's thoughts and interior life, her problems with school and having to deal with the concern for appearances in the South.

Neither of the two young actors who played Scout and Jem had had previous roles in movies. They were both from Birmingham, Alabama. I preferred the actor who played Jem (Phillip Alford), although it seems that the role of Scout (Mary Badham) gets more attention. Gregory Peck was, of course, perfect as Atticus Finch.

The DVD set I have includes a feature-length documentary on the making of the film, titled Fearful Symmetry. It was filmed in the late 1990's and provides interesting information. Several actors discuss their experience of working on this film. The screenwriter, Horton Foote, also shares insights about his process of adapting the book to the screen.

In the documentary, residents of the town where Harper Lee grew up reminisce about life in the town (and how much things have changed). The town in the book and the movie is called Maycomb and is based on Harper Lee's hometown, Monroeville, Alabama. The movie was filmed on the Universal backlot in Hollywood because Monroeville in 1962 no longer looked like a Southern town from the 1930's. The Monroe County Courthouse has become a museum. The interior of courthouse used in the film was recreated to look much like that building.

Joyeux Noël (film review)

Joyeux Noël is a 2005 film about the World War I Christmas truce along the Western Front in December 1914 (links are from Wikipedia). Per Wikipedia, "Through the week leading up to Christmas, parties of German and British soldiers began to exchange seasonal greetings and songs between their trenches; on occasion, the tension was reduced to the point that individuals would walk across to talk to their opposite numbers bearing gifts."

This film presents a fictionalized version of one such incident, involving two opera stars (a German tenor and a Danish soprano) who re-unite at the front, and Scottish, French, and German troops stationed in the same area. The film was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy Awards and the Golden Globe Awards in 2006.

This year I have read several books and watched a movie for the World War I reading challenge at War Through the Generations. My husband discovered this movie while we were researching the Christmas truce, which I had read about at that site. We watched the movie on Christmas Eve.



Did the movie give a realistic depiction of trench warfare in World War I? There is probably no way to truly convey the horror that these men lived through, but I think this movie did an adequate job. I was certainly horrified. The fear and uncertainty that they all faced daily was shown well. Is the story of the re-united lovers realistic? I doubt it. And the story was too melodramatic.

Regardless of the melodrama, I enjoyed the movie and was genuinely moved by the story. I liked the acting in the film; I cared about the characters who were portrayed. Diane Kruger, who also acted in Unknown with Liam Neeson and Inglourious Basterds, was Anna Sørensen, the Danish soprano. Ian Richardson has a brief role as an Anglican bishop at the end of the film.

The review at Reelviews notes that World War I is underrepresented in movies. I agree. After joining the World War I reading challenge (which allowed viewing and reviewing films also), I researched movies about specific wars and found many more on World War II.

Rear Window: A Film Review (RIP #7)

My second film for the R.eaders I.mbibing P.eril VII event is Rear Window, a highly acclaimed film directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

I thought this movie would fit the theme because it is a thriller and suspenseful. Nevertheless, I kept putting off watching the movie because I was too apprehensive about the tension level (which tells you a lot about my threshold for thrills and chills). I shouldn't have worried. There were definitely suspenseful moments, but I enjoyed them and all of the movie.

Rear Window tells the story of a man stuck in his apartment in his wheelchair for many weeks, due to a broken leg. His apartment window looks onto the backs of several other apartment buildings and he entertains himself watching his neighbors. And one day he thinks he has discovered that a crime has taken place. He tries to convince his nurse/masseuse, his girlfriend, and a friend in the police department that a crime has been committed and at first they all scoff.

This film was a crime thriller but there were so many other aspects I liked. I loved the sets. As the movie opens, the camera pans across the backs of all the apartments. The movie starts with our protagonist, Jeff Jeffries, checking out the activities that he can see. The stories of the residents of each apartment continue throughout the movie. I loved the vignettes of people's lives showcased here.

Another element of the story is the romance between Jeff, the adventurous photographer, and his girlfriend, Lisa, a fashion model. He does not want to settle down and resists her attempts to convince him that they could make a life together. She is the model of perfection; he likes his disorderly and unplanned life. Hitchcock is very good at exploring these types of issues between people.

The movie is based on a short story by Cornell Woolrich, "It Had to Be Murder." The documentary I watched on the DVD set, Rear Window Ethics: Remembering and Restoring a Hitchcock Classic, noted that the short story did not have any of the romance or the stories of the other apartment dwellers, which makes sense. The documentary is also worth watching. Peter Bogdanovich is interviewed and gives his thoughts on the film. Also, excerpts from Bogdanovich's interview of Alfred Hitchcock are included.

I thought this was my first viewing... because I remembered nothing as I watched it, except for the scenes that you see over and over of clips from the movie or in documentaries. My husband, who has tracked our movie viewing (at home, on tape, laser disc, or DVD for 24 years) tells me I saw this 22 years ago. As far as Hitchcock movies go, it does not rank at the top of my list. My favorites are North by Northwest (which we re-watch frequently), Notorious, and Marnie. Vertigo is not at the top of my list either, but I do think it is superior to Rear Window. But I enjoyed it and the background material about how the movie was made.

Shutter Island: A Film Review (RIP #6)

This was one creepy movie. My first film for the R.eaders I.mbibing P.eril VII event. I usually avoid scary movies. Horror movies with psychological aspects or with blood and gore... either way, they are pretty much off limits. Supernatural I can deal with, but still avoid. But I knew that Dennis Lehane is not really a writer in the horror genre, so I felt like there had to be more to this than it appeared (from the trailers).

I came to this movie with no knowledge of the book or the plot. I have read two and a half Dennis Lehane books, and while I find him a very talented writer, I find his books too intense for me. At least the thrillers. So I had no interest in reading Shutter Island. My husband bought the DVD and I knew I was going to watch it, so I intentionally avoided all reviews or comments on the movie.

Shutter Island starts with a scene on a boat going out to Shutter Island, taking two U.S. Marshals to investigate the case of an escaped inmate at a mental institution. The pair are partners, but they are meeting for the first time on this assignment.

The film also starts with spooky, ominous music. I was pretty freaked out just by the music. And with plenty of rain and bad weather, on a remote island, the mood is set.

After the marshals arrive, they are introduced to the doctor who runs the institution, which is run more like a prison.  The main character, Teddy Daniels, begins to have dreams, hallucinations, flashbacks to memories of past traumas. At that point, I wasn't sure where the movie was going.

I am a stickler for not revealing enough of a plot to ruin it for someone who has not watched a movie or read a book, and I don't know how much I can say about this movie without doing that.

An aside: This was the perfect time period for me. Post-World War II with flashbacks to the war and the aftermath. I love mystery novels about World War II and the lead up to the war and the post-war years. Had I known the setting for this novel, I might have given it a try earlier. But I am glad I didn't. Seeing the movie would have been a different experience if I had.

My recommendation: If you don't mind scary movies, some blood and gore, then watch it. After watching it, I felt like it was really well done. While watching, I was in a state of confusion much of the time. The book and the movie had mixed reactions when released, and they are not everyone's cup of tea.

The Fighting 69th: a film review

The Fighting 69th (1940 - Warner Brothers - 90 minutes). Starring James Cagney, Patrick O'Brien, and George Brent.

I watched this film as a part of my commitment for the World War I reading challenge at War Through the Generations. It is part of a DVD set (James Cagney: The Signature Collection) and it is the first I have watched from the set.

This movie is a film about events in World War I produced by Warner Brothers in 1940, at a time that the second World War was escalating in Europe. I found this movie to be a confusing mix of propaganda, humor, and depictions of the grim realities of war. Since it features a real regiment, with some characters who really fought in the war, it does give us a picture of that time.

The movie starts with a group of new recruits (to the 69th Infantry Regiment) arriving at a base; it  takes us through the training process, establishing relationships between various members of the Squadron.  Jerry Plunkett (Cagney) is just one of the recruits; he is a misfit who has a chip on his shoulder and just wants to get into battle as soon as possible. Once they reach the front, he finds the realities of battle overwhelming.  Several of the characters in the movie were real people, including Father Francis P. Duffy, Major "Wild Bill" Donovan, and  Sergeant Joyce Kilmer (the poet). Father Duffy, a major character in the movie, was a highly decorated cleric in the U.S. Army.

I approached this movie with expectations of liking it... a lot. James Cagney is one of my favorite actors, although I lean toward the movies where he dances.  I knew a movie produced in 1940 would probably be a propaganda piece, and I was prepared for that slant. I was not prepared for the religious overtones. The movie was just too heavy-handed in that area for me.  As my husband said, it is a movie of its time.

For the most part, the acting was just OK, although James Cagney did well in his role, despite playing a very unappealing character. From what I know of World War I, it seems that the scenes in the trenches are fairly realistic and portray the horror of the that war.  I had never heard of the Irish heritage unit, the 69th Infantry Regiment.

From the article on Wikipedia:

The outbreak of World War I saw a resurrection of the old spirit of the 69th. Doubled in size by new War Department regulations, its ranks were filled with Irish-Americans and New Yorkers detailed from other regiments, and it was sent over to France in October 1917 as part of the 42nd "Rainbow" Division of the American Expeditionary Force. All National Guard regiments received new "100 series" regimental numbers at that time. The 69th was renumbered the 165th Infantry Regiment, but retained its Irish symbolism and spirit...

This site has detailed information about the regiment, from the Civil War up to today: http://www.nyfighting69th.com/