"THE FIRST GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY" (1979) ReviewAs I have stated in many previous movie reviews, I am a sucker for period drama. However, I am an even bigger sucker when said drama turns out to be something different from the usual narrative for this kind of genre. In the case of the 1979 movie, "THE FIRST GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY", it turned out to be one of those rare kind of films.Like Michael Crichton's 1975 novel, "The Great Robbery", "THE FIRST GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY" is a fictional account of a famous robbery known as the "Great Gold Robbery of 1855". Before one thinks that the movie is a faithful account of this historical event or a faithful adaptation of Crichton's novel . . . you are bound to be disappointed. Not only did Crichton play a little fast and loose with history in his novel, he also wrote the movie's screenplay and made even more changes to the tale."THE FIRST GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY" began with a failed attempt by some nameless criminal to rob the gold used to pay the British troops fight in the Crimean War being shipped monthly on the London-to-Folkestone train. This failed robbery, which ended with the criminal's death, had been masterminded by a successful criminal named Edward Pierce. Finally realizing that the gold is guarded in two safes with two locks each, Pierce and his mistress, Miriam, recruit a pickpocket and screwsman named Robert Agar to make copies of the safes' four keys. They also set about attaining copies of the keys by exploiting the weaknesses of two key holders - bank president Edgar Trent and bank manager Henry Fowler.When they discover that the other two keys are locked in a cabinet, inside the office of the South Eastern Railway at the London Bridge train station, Pierce and Agar recruit a cat burglar named "Clean Willie" to help them break into rail office and make impressions of the keys. At first, Pierce is able to execute his plan with very few problems. But obtaining the keys inside the South Eastern Railway office and recruiting "Clean Willie" end up producing major obstacles that he and his accomplices are forced to overcome.I would not claim that "THE FIRST GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY" is a favorite movie of mine. But I must admit that every time I watch it, I usually end up enjoying it very much. And I cannot deny that it proved to be different than the usual period drama. Although "THE FIRST GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY" is a literary adaptation that also features a historical event, it is not the usual period piece. I mean . . . how many period dramas are about a real-life crime? Especially a crime that had occurred before the 20th century? If there is another movie with a similar narrative, I have yet to come across it.Even more interesting is that Crichton utilized great details to show audiences how the crime was planned and carried out. Yes, I realize that Crichton had made changes to his portrayal of the 1855 gold robbery, but I still cannot help but admire that he portrayed this crime in such a detailed manner. And this allowed me to enjoy the film even more, for it provided audiences a detailed look into the criminal and business worlds of the Victorian Age during the 1850s. This was especially the case in the movie's second half in which the protagonists schemed to get their hands on copies of the third and fourth set of keys inside a London railway station. And if I must be honest, I enjoyed the movie's first half even more - especially those scenes that featured the robbers' attempts to acquire copies of the first two keys. Since those two keys were in the hands of bank executive Trent and bank manager Fowlers, the movie allowed peeks into the lives of an early Victorian family and a Victorian bachelor, all from the upper-middle-classes. These scenes included one featuring Pierce's wooing of Trent's only daughter, while riding along Hyde Park's Rotten Row, a popular riding spot for upper and middle-class Londoners; and another featuring Miriam's seduction of the always lustful Fowler inside an exclusive London bordello.Another aspect of "THE FIRST GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY" that I enjoyed was its production values. Crichton and producer John Foreman had gathered a first-rate crew for this movie. There were four aspects of the movie's production values that I enjoyed . . . somewhat. I certainly had no problem with Maurice Carter's production designs for the movie. I thought he did an excellent job in re-creating Victorian London - especially in crowd scenes like the Rotten Row sequence, the bordello and the railway station. I also enjoyed Jerry Goldsmith's score. Although I did not find it particularly memorable, I thought it blended well with various scenes throughout the movie and was original enough in a jaunty way. I have slightly mixed feelings about Anthony Mendleson's costume designs. On one hand, I thought many of them - especially those for the male characters - wonderfully recaptured the fashion styles of the mid-1850s. My feelings regarding his designs for the female characters were another matter. There were some designs that I admired very much - especially those for the Pamela Trent and Emily Trent characters. Yet, I found those designs for Lesley-Anne Down's character rather theatrical. I also have mixed about Geoffrey Unsworth's cinematography. On one hand, I found many of the film's wide shots - especially in many of the exterior shots - rather colorful and beautiful. Unfortunately . . . I also noticed that Unsworth's photography seemed to project this hazy film, indicating that the movie was a period drama. Personally, I found this . . . haze rather annoying and a bit detrimental to the movie's sharp colors.I can only recall at least three or four sequences that might be considered action-oriented. Three of them involved the "Clean Willie" character and I found them well shot by Crichton. The fourth action sequence - the actual train robbery - was also well shot by Crichton. The problem is that I am not a big fan of the actual robbery sequence. What can I say? It bored me. I could explain that I am becoming less tolerant of action sequences in my old age. But if I must be honest, I never really liked this sequence when I first saw it when I was a lot younger. There is nothing like an actual action sequence on top a train to bore the living daylights out of me. It was not Crichton's fault. This is simply a case of my personal preferences.I certainly had no problems with the cast. Sean Connery was the perfect embodiment of middle-age debonair as the charismatic, clever and occasionally ruthless criminal mastermind, Edward Pierce. I would not exactly regard this role as a challenge for him. But he seemed to be enjoying himself. The role of Pierce's mistress, Miriam, seemed to be quite rare for Lesley-Anne Down. I can only recall her portraying a similar character in another heist film that released the same year. Personally, I thought she did a great job portraying Miriam not only as a sexy paramour for Pierce, but also as an equally intelligent and talented partner-in-crime.The movie also featured some interesting performances from Malcolm Terris as the lustful bank manager Henry Fowler with a penchant for prostitutes. Michael Elphick was effective as the cool and collected bank guard Burgess, who accepts Pierce's bribe to be a part of the heist. Gabrielle Lloyd gave an interesting performance as Edgar Trent's rather stuffy and plain daughter Elizabeth whom Pierce pretends to court. And Pamela Salem gave a sly performance as Elizabeth's stepmother Emily Trent, who hides her lust for Pierce with a cool attitude and pointed comments. Other fine supporting performances came from Alan Webb, Wayne Sleep, Robert Lang and André Morell."What about Donald Sutherland?" many might be thinking. Why was he left out of the praise? Trust me, he was not. If I must be honest, Sutherland gave my favorite performance in the film. I really enjoyed his colorful take on the witty and sly pickpocket/screwsman Robert Agar. However, I do have one complaint to make . . . and it not about Sutherland's performance. As I had just stated, I found it very enjoyable. But I had read somewhere that the real Agar was more or less the brains behind the bank robbery. Also, Crichton had somewhat "dumbed down" the character in his 1975 novel and in the movie. I noticed, while watching the film that Sutherland's Agar seemed to flip-flop between an intelligent criminal and a buffoon. Personally, I found this inconsistent and unnecessary . . . especially for a successful criminal like Agar.Yes, I have a few quibbles regarding "THE FIRST GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY". And if I must be honest, it is not a great favorite of mine. But I certainly do not regarding it as a mediocre piece of filmmaking. In fact, I thought it was not only an excellent movie, but also rather original for a period piece. Michael Crichton may not have been that faithful to what actually happened during the "Great Gold Robbery of 1855", but I found his fictionalized account rather exciting. And the movie was topped by fine performances from a cast led by Sean Connery, Donald Sutherland and Lesley-Anne Down.
Below are images of locations used in the television adaptation of John Jakes’ "NORTH AND SOUTH" Trilogy. The three miniseries aired between 1985 and 1994:"NORTH AND SOUTH" TRILOGY LOCATIONS
Boone Hall Plantation; Mount Pleasant, South Carolina - This plantation had served as the exterior shots for the Main family’s South Carolina plantation, Mont Royal in "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOKS I & II":
---------------------------------
Stanton Hall; Natchez, Mississippi - This mansion was used for the interior shots of the Main family’s South Carolina plantation house, Mont Royal in "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOKS I & II" :
---------------------------------
Calhoun Mansion; Charleston, South Carolina - This manor house served as the Hazard family’s Lehigh Station, Pennsylvania mansion, Belvedere in "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOKS I & II":
---------------------------------
Greenwood Plantation; St. Francisville, Louisiana - This plantation had served as the South Carolina plantation, Resolute; which was owned by the Mains’ neighbor, Justin LaMotte in "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOKS I & II":
---------------------------------
Jefferson College; Washington, Mississippi - The rooms at this former all-male college had served as the barracks at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York in "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK I":
----------------------------------
Sunset Station; San Antonio, Texas - This historic train station had served as the rail terminal station in St. Louis, Missouri in "HEAVEN AND HELL - NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK III":
"A FAMILY SCANDAL IN THE 'NORTH AND SOUTH' TRILOGY"
I love John Jakes' "NORTH AND SOUTH" Trilogy. Honestly, I do. I love it so much that I have copies of the novels published between 1982 and 1987 that make up the trilogy. I love it so much that I have also copies of the television adaptations (1985-1986; 1994) of the novels, produced by Wolper Productions. Unfortunately, the trilogy has a few narrative problems. And I feel that one of its biggest problems centered around a particular painting.
I am referring to a certain painting that hung inside an expensive New Orleans. This particular painting depicted a beautiful young woman, who also happened to be one of the prostitutes that worked there. This particular prostitute was favored by the bordello's owner. More importantly, she left the bordello and her profession in order to marry one of her customers. Despite her European ancestry, this woman was the granddaughter of an African-born slave. She also happened to be the mother of one of the "NORTH AND SOUTH" Trilogy's main characters - Madeline Fabray. And she eventually became the mother-in-law of three other main characters.
Before I continued, I want to say a few words about the painting of Madeline Fabray's mother that was created for the first two miniseries, 1985's "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK I" and 1986's "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II". I did not find it impressive. Look at that dress worn by the painting's subject. It looks cheap and tacky. Not even a high-priced prostitute like Madeline's mother would wear such a dress. Even worse, the dress and hairstyle worn by the subject failed to reflect the right decade. Madeline Fabray had been born in the mid-1820s. This meant that her mother must have been a prostitute between the late 1810s and early 1820s. The hairstyle and dress worn by Madeline's mother seemed to reflect that the painting had been created between in the mid-1840s and early 1850s - at least two to three decades after Mrs. Fabray's death. Wolper Productions really made a mistake in allowing this painting to serve as an image of the late Mrs. Fabray. But the story that surrounded both the character and the painting struck me as a lot more problematic. And the trouble began in John Jakes' 1982 novel, "North and South".
In 1846, two years after her marriage to South Carolina rice planter Justin LaMotte, Madeline Fabray LaMotte had traveled back to her hometown of New Orleans to care for her dying father. Before he finally passed away, Nicholas Fabray informed his daughter that both she and her mother were of mixed blood. One of Madeline's ancestresses was an African-born slave, which meant the late Mrs. Fabray was one-fourth black and Madeline, one-eighth. Shocked by this revelation, Madeline kept this secret to herself for years, until she finally confessed it to her lover and husband's neighbor Orry Main - one of the novel's two main characters - after she left her brutish husband in the late winter of 1861. Despite his initial shock, Orry took the news rather well and eventually married Madeline, following Justin's death during the early months of the Civil War.
Unbeknownst to Madeline and Orry, an Army officer named Elkhannah Bent had already learned about her mother's background . . . former profession. Bent first met Orry during their years at West Point. Orry, along with his best friend, Pennsylvania-born George Hazard, became Bent's enemies. When they nearly caused his expulsion from West Point, he vowed to get his revenge. He nearly got Orry killed at the Battle of Churubusco, during the Mexican-American War. Neither the Hazards nor the Mains had heard about Bent for years, until they learned he was the immediate commanding officer of Charles Main, Orry's younger cousin, in Texas during the late 1850s. Either in 1858 or 1859, Bent visited Charles' quarters for a talk and spotted a photograph taken at a picnic held at the Main family's estate, Mont Royal. Among the subjects in the photograph were Madeline and Justin LaMotte. Bent seemed taken by Madeline's looks. In January 1861, Bent was recalled back to the War Department in Washington D.C. During his journey from Texas to the East Coast, Ben visited an expensive bordello in New Orleans - the same one where Mrs. Fabray had worked some decades ago. There, he spotted the infamous painting inside the office of Madam Conti, the bordello's owner. Bent learned from Madam Conti that the painting's subject was not only of mixed blood, but also a former prostitute who had married well. Noticing the physical similarities between Madeline LaMotte and the painting's subject, Bent ascertained that the two women were related. For reasons that still amaze me, he decided that this bit of knowledge could serve as a weapon against Orry Main.
In the 1984 novel, "Love and War", Bent returned to New Orleans about a year-and-a-half later, during the second year of the Civil War, and stole the painting, jeopardizing his Army career. Realizing that he no longer had a military career, Bent deserted from the Union Army and journeyed toward Richmond, Virginia – the capital of the Confederacy. Nearly two years later, he managed to find and acquaint himself with one of Orry’s younger sisters, Ashton Main Huntoon. Bent had chosen well. Orry’s vain and unpleasant sister had estranged herself from the Main family, following her attempt to arrange the murder of her brother-in-law, Billy Hazard, for rejecting her years earlier for younger sister Brett. Once Bent had revealed the infamous painting, along with Madeline’s family history, to Ashton; the latter revealed everything to guests at a private reception that included Confederate Senator Judah Benjaminof Louisiana and Christopher Memminger, a South Carolinian resident who was serving as a Secretary of the Treasury for the Confederate States. Orry’s superior, General John H. Winder had "requested" that he send Madeline away from Richmond. Orry sent Madeline to the Hazards’ home in Lehigh Station, Pennsylvania and resigned his position at the War Department before assuming a field command toward the end of the Overland Campaign in June 1864.
The adaptations of the 1982 and 1984 novels - 1985's "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK I" and 1986's "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II" - took a different spin on the tale. One, Madeline did not learn the truth about her mother from her father until 1854, ten years following her marriage to Justin LaMotte. She told Orry about her secret some three months later, leading him to insist that she leave Justin and accompany him to the North. However, events involving Madeline and a secret abortion for a pregnant and still single Ashton Main led to the end of Orry's plans. Madeline more or less became a prisoner of her husband for nearly six-and-a-half years. Justin LaMotte died during the summer of 1861 and a few months later, Madeline and Orry became husband and wife.
As for Elkhannah Bent, his discovery of the painting also unfolded differently. In the television version, Bent (who was an amalgamation of the literary Bent and a character named Lamar Powell), was visiting New Orleans in 1856 or 1857, when he met Ashton's new husband, James Huntoon. He was in New Orleans to give a pro-secession speech. The pair, along with two other men, proceeded to Madam Conti's bordello. When James removed his wallet from his jacket, a photograph of his and Ashton's wedding reception fell from his wallet. The photograph contained the bridal pair, the Main family and a few guests that included Justin and Madeline La Motte. Apparently, this was not Bent's first visit to the bordello. While waiting for one of the madam's prostitutes to finish with a customer, Bent and Madam Conti had refreshments in her private office that contained the painting of Mrs. Fabray. While the madam told Bent about the painting's subject, he quickly surmised that Mrs. Fabray and the Mains' neighbor were blood related. Some four years later - between the end of "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK I" and "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II" - Bent managed to acquire the painting. Only neither miniseries revealed how he did it. I can only make the assumption that he had purchased it from Madam Conti. In Episode 2, Bent revealed the painting to Ashton, who had become his lover. Instead of revealing Madeline's secret to Richmond society, Ashton used her knowledge of the painting and Mrs. Fabray's past to blackmail Madeline into leaving Orry and Mont Royal for good. Two years later, days after the war ended, Madeline and Orry reconciled in Charleston.
Superficially, there seemed to be nothing wrong with the narrative regarding Madeline's mother and the painting in both Jakes' novels and the television miniseries. Superficially. However, both the novels and the miniseries revealed a major blooper. Why on earth did Elkhannah Bent went out of his way to get his hands on that painting? Why? In both the 1982 novel and the 1985 miniseries, Madeline was revealed to Bent as the wife of a neighboring planter. Neither Charles Main in the novel or James Huntoon in the miniseries knew about Madeline's romantic connection to Orry. Which meant that Bent was not aware of this relationship, as well. In both the novels and the miniseries, Bent did not find out about Madeline and Orry's relationship until after he got his hands on the painting. so, Why would Bent risk his professional career in "Love and War" to steal the painting featuring Madeline's mother, if he was unaware of Orry's emotional connection to her daughter? Or pay good money to purchase the painting (which is my theory, by the way) in the television adaptations?
I wish I could say that matters got better in the third act of Jakes' trilogy. But it did not. Another mystery regarding the painting manifested. In both the third novel, 1987's "Heaven and Hell" and the third miniseries, 1994's "HEAVEN AND HELL: NORTH AND SOUTH BOOK III", the locals who lived in the same neighborhood as the Mains seemed aware of Madeline's African ancestry and the profession of her mother. My question is . . . how? How did locals like her first husband's cousin, Gettys La Motte discover her family secret in the first place? Who had spilled the beans?
In "Love and War", Jakes had made a point of both Judah Benjamin and Christopher Memminger attending the reception where Ashton had revealed Madeline's secret. However, Benjamin moved to Great Britain after the war and Memminger ended up in North Carolina, following his resignation as Secretary of the Treasurer in July 1864. Ashton, her husband James, and her lover Lamar Powell were forced to flee Richmond for the New Mexico Territory after Orry exposed their plot to assassinate the Confederacy's president, Jefferson Davis. Lamar Powell killed James Huntoon before being killed by an Apache warrior upon their arrival in the Southwest. Ashton arrived in Santa Fe a few days later, stranded and without any funds. It took her at least four years to return to South Carolina. So none of the above could have revealed Madeline's secret to the Mains' neighbors. More importantly, Jakes never bothered to reveal how the news reached the South Caroline low country.
"NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II" told a slightly different tale. A year after Bent had exposed Madeline's secret to Ashton, she used the knowledge to blackmail her sister-in-law into leaving Mont Royal for good. However, neither Ashton or Bent ever told another soul. The only other people who knew about Madeline's mother were her former maid, Maum Sally, who was killed by Justin LaMotte back in 1856, during the debacle regarding Ashton's unwanted pregnancy; Orry; and his mother, Clarissa Main. And none of these people told a soul. Not even Ashton or Bent, which I find surprising. Like Jakes, the screenwriters for the second and third miniseries never made the effort to set up, let alone reveal how the Mains' neighbors learned about Madeline's secret.
It is a pity that the storyline regarding Madeline and her mother was marred by sloppy writing. It had the potential to be one of the most interesting arcs in the entire saga, especially since it focused upon attitudes regarding miscegenation in the United States . . . attitudes that lasted for another century following the saga's setting and still linger to this day. Oh well. There is nothing I can do about it. I suppose I can only regard it as a blooper and move on.
"NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II" (1986) - EPISODE SIX "March-April 1865" Commentary
I hate to say this, but whenever I watch "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II", I usually heave a sigh of relief after the last episode fades away. I have never done this with the other two miniseries - "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK I" and "HEAVEN AND HELL: NORTH AND SOUTH BOOK III". But with the 1986 production, I usually do. There is something about watching this particular production usually ends up as hard work for me.
Episode Six of "BOOK II" began at least a month after Episode Five ended. This episode began with Orry Main hiring a former Pinkerton detective to find his missing wife, Madeline Fabray LaMotte Main. The latter continues her efforts to feed Charleston's poor by appealing to Union general William Tecumseh Sherman. With nothing else to do, Orry has no choice but to help the Confederacy defend Richmond, Virginia; which is under siege from the Army of the Potomoc under Ulysses S. Grant. The episode eventually leads into the Battle of Fort Stedman, in which Orry, his cousin Charles, George and Billy Hazard all participate. The Union victory at Fort Stedman eventually lead to another military victory for the Army of Potomoc and Confederate General Robert E. Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox Court House. Once the episode puts these series of historical events behind, Episode Six refocuses on the main characters' personal lives.
Episode Six closes more story arcs that began in Episode One than the previous episode did. The consequences of Charles Main and Augusta Barclay concludes in one stage and begins in another that will continue in 1994's "HEAVEN AND HELL: NORTH AND SOUTH BOOK III". The war's end leads to a final romantic reunion for Billy and Brett Hazard. In fact, the Charles/Augusta and Billy/Brett relationships were not the only ones that came to fruition in this episode. Episode Sixalso resolved the romance between Semiramis and Ezra, with the former finally acknowledging her love for the latter. And yes, Orry finally finds Madeline and their son with the help of George and Madeline's attorney, Miles Colbert. With war, there is always the chance for tragedy. While tragedy of one kind marked John Jakes' 1984 novel, another kind of tragedy ends Virgilia Hazard's relationship with Congressman Sam Greene and her character arc, which began in "BOOK I". Tragedy also occurred during the attack upon Mont Royal near the end of the episode. Irony also seemed to be hallmark of this attack, for it was led by an alliance between former Mont Royal slave Cuffey and former overseer Salem Jones. I found it ironic that a black man and a white man, former enemies due to their positions as slave and overseer, should form an alliance against the very family that had controlled their lives in one form or another. Non-elites of two different races uniting against the elite. Talk about a rich man's worst nightmare.
There was a good deal about Episode Six for me to praise. One of the miniseries’ strengths has always been its battle scenes. And this particular episode featured an exciting interpretation of the Battle at Fort Stedman. As I had earlier noted, this episode also featured a poignant recreation of the Surrender at Appomattox. There were some dramatic scenes that I found very satisfying. One of them included George and Orry's emotional reunion following the Appomattox surrender and Charles' return to Barclay's Farm. A part of me realizes this might be wrong, but I felt a great sense of satisfaction in the way Virgilia dealt with her situation with Congressman Sam Greene. However, her act landed her in serious legal trouble and a very tearful reconciliation with her brother George. Last, but not least was Cuffey and Salem Jones' action-packed assault on Mont Royal.
I have to give credit to several people for the manner in which both the action and dramatic sequences in this episode. One of them is Kevin Connor, who I must admit did a pretty solid job in helming this six-part, 540-minutes juggernaut for television from a script filled with plot holes. I also have to comment upon the work of cinematographer Jacques R. Marquette, whose excellent photography of the miniseries added a great deal of pathos to a story about one of the United States' most traumatic periods in its history. I was especially impressed by how he handled the Fort Stedman sequence. Bill Conti's score contributed a great deal to the production's narrative. And I was also impressed by the work of the six men who served as the miniseries' film editing team, especially for the Fort Stedman and Mont Royal attack sequences. And as usual, Robert Fletcher knocked it out of the ballpark with his costume designs . . . especially for the outfits shown in the images below:
Judging from Fletcher's filmography, I suspect that "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II" was his best work on screen - movies or television.
"NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II" also featured some fine performances. Aside from one particular scene that I found particularly hammy, I was satisfied with the performances featured in this episode. For me, the best performances came from Patrick Swayze, Lloyd Bridges, Parker Stevenson, Forest Whitaker, Tony Frank, David Ogden Stiers, Jean Simmons, Inga Swanson, John Nixon. I was especially impressed by James Read and Kirstie Alley's performances in the scene that featured George and Virgilia's emotional reconciliation and discovery of President Abraham Lincoln's assassination. And the poignancy in the Appomattox surrender sequence greatly benefited from Anthony Zerbe and William Schallert's portrayal of Generals Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee. On a minor note, if you look carefully during the miniseries' last half hour, you might spot future star Bryan Cranston as a Union officer whom George questions about Orry whereabouts, following the Fort Stedman battle.
Although there seemed to be a good about Episode Six that strikes me as praiseworthy . . . and there is, I found a good deal that I found problematic. Which strikes me as a pity, for the emotional levity featured in this episode could have made Episode Six my favorite in the entire miniseries. Alas . . . I have too much to complain about. Three of my problems centered around the Charles Main character. First of all, two months after he last saw Augusta Barclay inEpisode Five, Charles discovered that he was the father of an infant boy. Apparently Augusta had died while giving birth to their son. Unfortunately . . . Augusta DID NOT look pregnant during her last meeting with Charles. And considering that they had made love in the previous episode, her pregnancy should not have come as a surprise to him. To make matters worse, young Augustus Charles Main looked as if he had been conceived nearly two years ago. Honestly. The kid looked at least one year old. And Charles and Augusta had started their affair eleven months before the end of the war. Unlike Jakes' novel, Charles found his son being cared for by Augusta's South Carolina relatives in Charleston. Really? Was that necessary? I found it ridiculously convee-ee-ee-ient that Augusta had Charleston relatives, who managed to be in Virginia at the time she gave birth to her son. My second problem with Charles is the fact that it took him less than a week to travel from Spotsylvania County, Virginia to Charleston, South Carolina. Less than a week? On horseback? Charles' journey should have taken him longer. This seemed like an extreme reversal of Brett and Semiramis' ludicrous four-month journey from Washington D.C. to Mont Royal.
Quite frankly, I felt a bit put out that the screenwriters (which include John Jakes) dumped a tragic ending to Virgilia Hazard's story arc. Unlike the miniseries, Virgilia survived her affair with Congressman Greene and ended up marrying another black man - the same man who had befriend George, Constance and Brett in the novel. Apparently, Wolper Productions felt that since Virgilia's five-year marriage had ended in tragedy, it seemed proper to give her a tragic ending, as well. Or perhaps many of the trilogy's fans had found Virgilia's radical politics and marriage to Grady so off-putting that David Wolper and the screenwriters had decided to appease them by giving her a tragic ending. Regardless their reason, I found Virgilia's tragic ending very annoying and clichéd. As much as Patrick Swayze's portrayal of Orry Main had impressed me in this episode, there is one scene in which his acting skills failed to impress. I hate to say this, but I cannot hold it back. I refer to the scene in which Orry finds the body of his mother Clarissa Main, following the attack upon Mont Royal and expresses his grief. Can I say . . . OVER-THE-TOP? Seriously. I found it to be one of the hammiest moments in the entire television trilogy.
But the episode's real problems were made obvious during the Fort Stedman battle sequence. Granted, I was impressed by the visual style of this segment. But I noticed the screenwriters went out of their way to ensure that the major four military characters - George, Billy, Orry and Charles - all participated in this battle. In ensuring this, the screenwriters committed a great deal of inconsistencies and bloopers. Orry led a group of infantry troops into battle for the first time, since the Battle of Churubusco, nearly eighteen years earlier. Personally, I never saw the need for him to be put into the field. The Army of Northern Virginia still had enough commanders to lead men into battle. One of the officers under his command proved to be Charles. Charles? Charles, who spent the entire war as a cavalry officer and scout under Wade Hampton III? I am aware that Charles had led infantry troops during the Battle Antietam, during Episode Three. And I had pointed that this was a major blooper. Yet, the screenwriters repeated this same blooper by allowing him to lead infantry troops again during the Battle at Fort Stedman . . . this time, under Orry's command. Also leading infantry troops for the Union was George Hazard. Now, I am baffled. George had command of Artillery troops during the Battle of Gettysburg in Episode Three and when he was captured during Episode Four. Could someone explain why the screenwriters had decided to have him lead Infantry troops in this episode? Among the troops under George's command proved to be his brother Billy, who continued to serve with the Sharpshooters. It was bad enough that the writers had Charles serving under Orry during this battle. But they had Billy serving under George, as well? There is more, folks. Not only did Billy continued to serve with the Sharpshooters, he also seemed to be in command of them. For, I saw no other officers during this scene. I am aware that Hiram Burdan was no longer in command of this regiment by the end of the war. But what happened to the other officers in the regiment? What happened to Rudy Bodford and Stephen Kent? They seemed to have disappeared. And how did Billy end up in this position, considering that he had spent nearly 10 months AWOL between the summer of 1863 and the spring of 1864? What the hell, guys? Come on!
Do not get me wrong. There is still plenty to admire about "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II". Like its predecessor,"NORTH AND SOUTH"; it has its share of good acting, exciting sequences, drama, superb production values, and probably the best costume design in the entire trilogy, thanks to Robert Fletcher’s work. Unfortunately, the 1986 miniseries has its share of major flaws that included clunky dialogue and probably some of the worst writing in the entire trilogy. And when I say the entire trilogy, I am including the much reviled "NORTH AND SOUTH III: HEAVEN AND HELL". "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II" might be my least favorite chapter in the television trilogy, thanks to a great deal of plot holes and historical inaccuracies . . . I still managed to enjoyed it anyway.
"NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II" (1986) - EPISODE FIVE "December 1864 - February 1865" Commentary
"NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II" finally reached its home stretch in Episode Five, the penultimate episode. Well . . . almost. Beginning several weeks after the end of Episode Four, Episode Five continued the miniseries' portrayal of the Civil War's last year for the Hazards and the Mains. It also put three or four subplots to rest.
Episode Five opened with George Hazard still imprisoned inside Libby Prison in Richmond, Virginia. The episode also continued with Madeline Main's efforts to feed Charleston's poor and war refugees, Charles Main and Augusta Barclay's wartime romance, and the survival of Mont Royal's remaining inhabitants. Episode Five also closed several subplots that included Stanley and Isobel Hazard's war profiteering, Elkhannah Bent and Ashton Main Huntoon's plot against Jefferson Davis' administration, and Madeline's relationship with former officer Rafe Beaudine.
This episode featured some excellent dramatic moments. Lewis Smith certainly shined in his portrayal of Charles Main, who had hardened considerably after three-and-a-half years of war. This was especially apparent in scenes that included Charles' reluctance to help his cousin Orry Main rescue George Hazard from Libby Prison, his cold-blooded killing of a Union prisoner, his attempt prevent fellow scout Jim Pickles from deserting and his emotionally distant attitude toward lady love Augusta Barclay and her manservant, Washington. Another well acted scene featured Brett Main Hazard and Semiramis' encounter with former Mont Royal overseer, Salem Jones. Watching Erica Gimpel point a shotgun at Tony Frank, considering their characters' past history, brought a smile to my face. I also enjoyed the poignant scene between Brett and her mother, Clarissa Main, while the latter painfully reminisced about the past; thanks to Genie Francis and Jean Simmons' performances. And both James Read and Jonathan Frakes knocked it out of the ballpark in the scene that featured George's confrontation with Stanley and Isobel over their war profiteering. They were supported by fine performances from Wendy Kilbourne and Mary Crosby.
But another truly superb performance came from Terri Garber, who got a chance to portray Ashton Huntooon's increasing doubts over Elkhannah Bent's scheme against Davis. This was especially apparent in one scene in which Ashton silently expressed shame over her willingness to prostitute herself to a potential contributor for Bent's plot. She received fine support from Jim Metzler as her husband James Huntoon and Patrick Swayze as Orry Main. But I felt that Philip Casnoff's Bent nearly became slightly hammy by the scene's end. Even Lesley Anne Down and Lee Horsley managed to shine as Madeline and the infatuated Rafe Beaudine. But I must admit that I found one of their later scenes slightly melodramatic.
Yet, despite these dramatic gems, I was not particularly impressed by the writing featured in Episode Five. I had a problem with several subplots. One, I had a problem with the subplot involving Stanley and Isobel's profiteering. It made me wish the screenwriters had adhered to author John Jakes' original portrayal of the couple in his 1984 novel, "Love and War". I felt this subplot had ended with a whimper. It was bad enough that George had killed Stanley and Isobel's partner in a bar fight. But aside from the dead partner, the only way the couple could face conviction was to confess. And I found it implausible that a remorseful Stanley would still be willing to do that after receiving an earful of angry insults from George. Very weak.
Episode Five also allowed Madeline and Bent's subplots to interact for the purpose of killing off Rafe Beaudine. Frankly, I found the idea of Bent traveling from Richmond to Charleston for more funds . . . only to be told to seek hard cash from"the Angel of Charleston" - namely Madeline. The latter recruited a retired stage actress portrayed by Linda Evans to impersonate her and discover Bent's plans. And what was Madeline's next act? She left her boarding house (in the middle of the night) to warn . . . who? The script never made it clear about whom Madeline had intended to warn. Why? Because her night time task was interrupted by Bent, who had recognized the stage actress. And before Bent could lay eyes upon Madeline, Rafe comes to her rescue. What can I say? Contrived.
I also found Bent's scheme to get rid of Jefferson Davis and assume political and military control of the Confederacy rather ludicrous. Audiences never really saw him recruit any real political support for his scheme . . . just money from various wealthy Southerners. The screenplay never allowed Bent to make any effort to recruit military support for the weapons he had purchased. In the end, I found the entire subplot lame and a waste of my time.
And finally, we come to the efforts of "Madeline the Merciful" to find food for Charleston's poor. Personally, I found this subplot ludicrous. Madeline did not bother to recruit other women from Charleston's elite to help her. And I suspect some of them would have been willing to help. I also found this subplot extremely patronizing. Again, it seemed to embrace the"savior complex" trope to the extreme. The subplot seemed to infantilize all social groups that were not part of the city's white elite or middle-class - namely fugitive slaves, working-class whites and all free blacks. I found this last category surprising, considering that the screenwriters failed to acknowledge that not all free blacks were poor. In the end, this entire subplot struck me as a white elitist fantasy that Julian Fellowes would embrace.
The production values featured in the episode struck me as top-notch. Both director Kevin O'Connor and the film editing team did excellent work for the actions scenes in Episode Five. I found myself impressed by the scenes that featured George's escape from Libby Prison, his bar fight with Stanley and Isobel's profiteering partner, Bent and Rafe's fight in Charleston and the former's encounter with Orry and the Huntoons back in Virginia. More importantly, Robert Fletcher continued to shine with his outstanding costume designs, as shown in the following images:
Yes, Episode Five featured some fine dramatic moments and performances. It even featured some solid action scenes. But . . . I was not particularly happy with most of the subplots. I also found the ending of one particularly subplot rather disappointing. No one felt more relieved than me when Episode Five finally ended.
