"WAR AND PEACE" (2016) Review
I have a confession to make. I have never seen a movie or television adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's 1869 novel, "War and Peace". Never. Well . . . I once made an attempt to watch the 1956 movie adaptation directed by King Vidor. Unfortunately, I could never go the distance. In fact, I have never read the novel.
However, many years passed. When I heard about the BBC's latest adaptation of Tolstoy's novel, my curiosity got the best of me and I decided to give "WAR AND PEACE" a chance. The six-part miniseries is simply about the experiences of five Russian families during the Napoleonic Wars in the early 19th century. Those families include the Bezukhovs, the Bolkonskys, the Rostovs, the Kuragins, and theDrubetskoys. The miniseries seemed to be divided into three segments during a period between 1805 and 1812-13. The first segment featured the introduction of the main characters and Russia's preparation of a war against Napoleon's France. This culminates into the Battle of Austerlitz in which two major characters - Prince Andrei Nikolayevich Bolkonsky and Count Nikolai Ilyich Rostov - participate.
The second segment featured the characters' personal experiences at home. During this period, the miniseries explored Count Pyotr "Pierre" Kirillovich Bezukhov's failed marriage with the beautiful, but vapid and unfaithful Princess Yelena "Hélène" Vasilyevna Kuragina; the Rostov family's financial woes and how it affected Nikolai Rostov; the emotional strains within the Bolkonsky family; Prince Boris Drubetskoy's efforts to advance his military career; and especially Countess Natalya "Natasha" Ilyinichna Rostova's love life, which included both Andrei Bolkonsky and Prince Anatole Vasilyevich Kuragin. This segment also included news of Treaties of Tilsit of 1807, which ended hostilities between Imperial France and Imperial Russia and Prussia. The miniseries' final segment focused on France's invasion of Russia in 1812 and the characters' efforts to survive it.
I could compare director Tom Harper and screenwriter Andrew Davies' adaptation with Tolstoy's novel, but it would be a useless effort. As I had earlier pointed out, I have never read the novel. But I do have at least two complaints about the productions. One of them revolved around the relationship between Natasha Rostova and Andrei Bolkonsky. I realize that the publicity machine on both sides of the Atlantic had undergone a great effort to build up the relationship between the pair. Frankly, I found the publicity campaign rather wasted. The Natasha/Andrei romance struck me as a disappointing and wasted effort. The majority of their story arc - which began with their meeting at a ball near the end of Episode Three, continued with Natasha's brief romance with the slimy Anatole Kuragin, and ended with Natasha's romances with both men crashing around her by the end of Episode Four; had moved . . . so damn fast that it left my head spinning. I cannot help but wonder if the entire arc could have been portrayed with more detail if the series had stretched a bit longer.
I also had a problem with Edward K. Gibbon's costume designs. I found most of them very colorful, especially for the aristocratic characters. But I also found most of them rather troublesome. Well . . . to be honest, I found them either mediocre or historically questionable. One of them left me gritting my teeth:
But my jaw had literally dropped at the sight of a few costumes worn by actresses Tuppence Middleton and Gillian Anderson - including those shown in the images below:
WHAT IN THE HELL??? Their costumes looked more appropriate for present-day evening wear than the early 19th century. What was Mr. Gibbons thinking?
Despite the rushed Natasha Rostova/Andrei Bolkonsky romance and despite the rather questionable costumes, I managed to enjoy "WAR AND PEACE" very much. I am a sucker for family sagas, especially when they are seeped in a historical background. And "WAR AND PEACE" nearly pushed every one of my buttons when it comes to a well made saga. It had everything - romance, family struggles, historical events and personages. When I realized that Tolstoy had originally focused his tale on five families, I did not think Andrew Davies would be able to translate the author's novel in a tight story without losing its epic quality.
There were certain sequences that really blew my mind, thanks to Davies' writing and especially, Tom Harper's direction. I thought Harper did an outstanding job of re-creating battles like Austerlitz and Borodino, along with the French Army's retreat from Moscow. Harper also did a great job in directing large parties and ball scenes. My two favorites are the party held at St. Petersburg socialite Anna Pavlovna Scherer's salon in Episode 1 and the ball where Natasha and Andrei met in Episode 3.
But it was not just the battle and crowd scenes that impressed me. "WAR AND PEACE" is - after all - a melodrama, even if many literary critics are inclined not to admit it. I never thought I would find myself getting caught up in the lives of the saga's main characters. But I did. I must admit that I admire how Tolstoy . . . and Davies managed to allow the three main characters - Pierre, Natasha and Andrei - to interact with the five families, regardless of blood connection or marriage. I especially enjoyed the explorations into the lives of Pierre, the Rostovs and the Bolkonskys. At first glance, some might regard the miniseries' ending that featured a picnic with the families of the three leads as a bit on the saccharine. It did have a "happily ever after" tinge about it. But I read in a newspaper article that complained about Tolstoy's "realistic" ending - one that featured a less-than-happy view of the protagonists' lives and a critique from Tolstoy on all forms of mainstream history. Thanks to Davies' screenplay, audiences were spared of this.
"WAR AND PEACE" featured a good number of first-rate performances from a supporting cast that included Stephen Rea, Gillian Anderson, Tuppence Middleton, Callum Turner, Mathieu Kassovitz, Jessie Buckley, Adrian Edmondson, Aisling Loftus, Rebecca Front and Aneurin Barnard. However, I was especially impressed by certain supporting performances. One came from Greta Scacchi, who portrayed the Rostov family's practical and sometimes ruthless matriarch Countess Natalya Rostova. I also enjoyed Brian Cox's portrayal of the world weary General Mikhail Kutuzov, who has to contend with not only Napolean's army, but also the amateurish interference of the Czar. Tom Burke did a great job in portraying the wolfish and ambitious army officer, Fedor Dolokhov, who eventually becomes a better man following Napoleon's invasion. Jack Lowden's portrayal of the young Count Nikolai Rostov really impressed me, especially when his character found himself torn between following his heart and marrying a wealthy woman to restore his family's fortunes. And Jim Broadbent gave a very colorful performance as Prince Nikolai Bolkonsky, the mercurial and controlling patriarch of the Bolkonsky family.
And what about the production's three leads? Lily James gave a very charming performance as Countess Natasha Rostova. Well . . . I take that back. Describing James' performance as simply "charming" seemed to hint that I found it rather shallow. Yes, James handled Natasha's "light" moments with her usual competence. More importantly, she did an excellent job in conveying Natasha's personal struggles - especially during the series' second half. There were times when I did not know what to make of the Prince Andrei Bolkonsky. He struck me as a very unusual protagonist. Although I found him rather honorable and filled with valor, Andrei did not always struck me as likable - especially in his relationship with adoring, yet ignored wife Lise. And Norton superbly captured the many nuances of Andrei's character. If Andrei Bolkonsky struck me as an unusual protagonist, Count Pierre Bezukhov struck me as one of a kind. Well . . . one of a kind for a literary piece written in the 19th century. Sometimes, I get the feeling that someone like Pierre could easily translate into a late 20th century or early 21st century geek. Or perhaps not. I think Pierre is too kind and open-minded to be considered a geek. But he is very unusual for a leading man. And thanks to Paul Dano's superb portrayal, Pierre has become one of my favorite fictional characters. He did a stupendous job in conveying Pierre's character from this insecure and rather naive man to a man who learned to find wisdom and inner peace through his struggles. Dano was so good that I had assumed that his performance would garner him a major acting nomination. It did not and I am still flabbergasted by this travesty.
My taste in period dramas usually focused on stories set in the United States or Great Britain . . . with the occasional foray into France. I was very reluctant to tackle this latest adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's most famous novel. But I was in the mood for something new and decided to watch the six-part miniseries. I am happy to say that despite some flaws, I ended up enjoying "WAR AND PEACE" very much, thanks to Andrew Davies' screenplay, Tom Harper's direction and an excellent cast led by Paul Dano, James Norton and Lily James.
"12 YEARS A SLAVE" (2013) Review
I first learned about Solomon Northup many years ago, when I came across a television adaptation of his story in my local video story. One glance at the video case for "HALF-SLAVE, HALF-FREE: SOLOMON NORTHUP'S ODYSSEY" made me assume that this movie was basically a fictional tale. But when I read the movie's description on the back of the case, I discovered that I had stumbled across an adaption about a historical figure.
Intrigued by the idea of a free black man in antebellum America being kidnapped into slavery, I rented "HALF-SLAVE, HALF-FREE: SOLOMON NORTHUP'S ODYSSEY", which starred Avery Brooks, and enjoyed it very much. In fact, I fell in love with Gordon Park's adaption so much that I tried to buy a video copy of the movie. But I could not find it. Many years passed before I was able to purchase a DVD copy. And despite the passage of time, I still remained impressed by the movie. However, I had no idea that someone in the film industry would be interested in Northup's tale again. So, I was very surprised to learn of a new adaptation with Brad Pitt as one of the film's producer and Briton Steve McQueen as another producer and the film's director.
Based upon Northup's 1853 memoirs of the same title, "12 YEARS A SLAVE" told the story of a New York-born African-American named Solomon Northup, who found himself kidnapped and sold into slavery in 1841. Northup was a 33 year-old carpenter and violinist living in Saratoga Springs, New York with his wife and children. After Mrs. Northup leaves Saratoga Springs with their children for a job that would last for several weeks, Northup is approached by two men, who offered him a brief, high-paying job as a musician with their traveling circus. Without bothering to inform Northup traveled with the strangers as far as south as Washington, D.C. Not long after his arrival in the capital, Northup found himself drugged and later, bound in the cell of a slave pen. When Northup tried to claim he was a free man, he was beaten and warned never again to mention his free status again.
Eventually, Northup and a group of other slaves were conveyed to the slave marts of New Orleans, Louisiana and given the identity of a Georgia-born slave named "Platt". There, a slave dealer named Theophilus Freeman sells him to a plantation owner/minister named William Ford. The latter's kindness seemed to be offset by his unwillingness to acknowledge the sorrow another slave named Eliza over her separation from her children. When Northup has a violent clash with one of Ford's white employees, a carpenter named John Tibeats, the planter is forced to sell the Northerner to another planter named Edwin Epps. Unfortunately for Northup, Epps proves to be a brutal and hard man. Even worse, Epps becomes sexually interested in a female slave named Patsey. She eventually becomes a victim of Epps' sexual abuse and Mrs. Epps' jealousy. And Epps becomes aware of Patsey's friendship with Northup.
"TWELVE YEARS A SLAVE" has gained a great deal of critical acclaim since its release. It is already considered a front-runner for the Academy Awards. Many critics and film goers consider it the truest portrait of American slavery ever shown in a Hollywood film. I have to admit that both director Steve McQueen and screenwriter John Ridley have created a powerful film. Both did an excellent job of translating the basic gist of Solomon Northup's experiences to the screen. And both did an excellent job re-creating a major aspect of American slavery. I was especially impressed by certain scenes that featured the emotional and physical trauma that Northup experienced during his twelve years as a Southern slave.
For me, one of the most powerful scenes featured Northup's initial experiences at the Washington D.C. slave pen, where one of the owners resorted to physical abuse to coerce him into acknowledging his new identity as "Platt". Other powerful scenes include the slave mart sequence in New Orleans, where fellow slave Eliza had to endure the loss of her children through sale. I found the revelation of Eliza's mixed blood daughter being sold to a New Orleans bordello rather troubling and heartbreaking. Northup's encounter with Tibeats struck me fascinating . . . in a dark way. But the film's most powerful scene - at least for me - proved to be the harsh whipping that Patsey endured for leaving the plantation to borrow soap from a neighboring plantation. Some people complained that particular scene bordered on "torture porn". I disagree. I found it brutal and frank.
I have to give kudos to the movie's visual re-creation of the country's Antebellum Period. As in any well made movie, this was achieved by a group of talented people. Adam Stockhausen's production designs impressed me a great deal, especially in scenes featuring Saratoga Springs of the 1840s, the Washington D.C. sequences, the New Orleans slave marts and of course, the three plantations where Northup worked during his twelve years in Louisiana. In fact, the entire movie was filmed in Louisiana, including the Saratoga Springs and Washington D.C. sequences. And Sean Bobbitt's photography perfectly captured the lush beauty and color of the state. Trust the movie's producers and McQueen to hire long time costume designer, Patricia Norris, to design the film's costumes. She did an excellent job in re-creating the fashions worn during the period between 1841 and 1852-53.
Most importantly, the movie benefited from a talented cast that included Garrett Dillahunt as a white field hand who betrays Northup's attempt to contact friends in New York; Paul Giamatti as the New Orleans slave dealer Theophilus Freeman; Michael K. Williams as fellow slave Robert, who tried to protect Eliza from a lustful sailor during the voyage to Louisiana; Alfre Woodward as Mistress Shaw, the black common-law wife of a local planter; and Bryan Blatt as Judge Turner, a sugar planter to whom Northup was loaned out. More impressive performances came from Paul Dano as the young carpenter John Tibeats, who resented Northup's talent as a carpenter; Sarah Poulson, who portrayed Edwin Epp's cold wife and jealous wife; and Adepero Oduye, who was effectively emotional as the slave mother Eliza, who lost her children at Freeman's slave mart. Benedict Cumberbatch gave a complex portrayal of Northup's first owner, the somewhat kindly William Ford. However, I must point out that the written portryal of the character may have been erroneous, considering Northup's opinion of the man. Northup never judged Ford as a hypocrite, but only a a good man who was negatively influenced by the slave society. But the two best performances, in my opinion, came from Lupita Nyong'o and especially Chiwetel Ejiofor. Nyong'o gave a beautiful performance as the abused slave woman Patsey, whose endurance of Epps' lust and Mrs. Epps' wrath takes her to a breaking point of suicidal desire. Chiwetel Ejiofor, whom I have been aware for the past decade, gave the definitive performance of his career - so far - as the New Yorker Solomon Northup, who finds himself trapped in the nightmarish situation of American slavery. Ejiofor did an excellent job of conveying Northup's emotional roller coaster experiences of disbelief, fear, desperation and gradual despair.
But is "12 YEARS A SLAVE" perfect? No. Trust me, it has its flaws. Many have commented on the film's historical accuracy in regard to American slavery and Northup's twelve years in Louisiana. First of all, both McQueen and Ridley took historical liberty with some of Northup's slavery experience for the sake of drama. If I must be honest, that does not bother me. The 1984 movie with Avery Brooks did the same. I dare anyone to find a historical movie that is completely accurate about its topic. But what did bother me was some of the inaccuracies featured in the movie's portrayal of antebellum America.
One scene featured Northup eating in a Washington D.C. hotel dining room with his two kidnapper. A black man eating in the dining room of a fashionable Washington D.C. hotel in 1841? Were McQueen and Ridley kidding? The first integrated Washington D.C. hotel opened in 1871, thirty years later. Even more ludicrous was a scene featuring a drugged and ill Northup inside one of the hotel's room near white patrons. Because he was black, Northup was forced to sleep in a room in the back of the hotel. The death of the slave Robert at the hands of a sailor bent on raping Eliza struck me as ludicrous. One, it never happened. And two, there is no way some mere sailor - regardless of his color - could casually kill a slave owned by another. Especially a slave headed for the slave marts. He would find himself in serious financial trouble. Even Tibeats was warned by Ford's overseer about the financial danger he would face upon killing Northup. I can only assume that Epps was a very hands on planter, because I was surprised by the numerous scenes featuring him supervising the field slaves. And I have never heard of this before. And I am still shaking my head at the scene featuring Northup's visit to the Shaw plantation, where he found a loaned out Patsey having refreshments with the plantation mistress, Harriet Shaw. Black or white, I simply find it difficult to surmise a plantation mistress having refreshments with a slave - owned or loaned out. Speaking of Patsey's social visit to the Shaw plantation, could someone explain why she and Mistress Shaw are eating a dessert that had been created in France, during the late 19th century? Check out the image below:
The image features the two women eating macarons. Now I realize that macarons had existed even before the 1840s. But the macarons featured in the image above (with a sweet paste creating a sandwich with two cookies) first made their debut, thanks to a pair of Parisian bakers, in the late 19th century, decades after the movie's setting. This was a very sloppy move either on the part of Stockhausen or the movie's set decorator, Alice Baker.
And if I must be frank, I had a problem with some of the movie's dialogue. I realize that McQueen and Ridley were attempting to recapture the dialogue of 19th century America. But there were times I felt they had failed spectacularly. Some of it brought back painful memories of the stilted dialogue from the 2003 Civil War movie,"GODS AND GENERALS". The words coming out of the actors' mouths struck me as part dialogue, part speeches. The only thing missing was a speech from a Shakespearean play.
Not only did I have a problem with the dialogue, but also some of the performances. Even those performances I had earlier praised nearly got off tracked by the movie's more questionable dialogue. But I was not impressed by two particular performances. One came from Brad Pitt, who portrayed a Canadian carpenter hired by Epps to build a gazebo. To be fair, my main problems with Pitt's performance was the dialogue that sounded like a speech . . . and his accent. Do Canadians actually sound like that? In fact, I find it difficult to pinpoint what kind of accent he actually used. The performance that I really found troubling was Michael Fassbender's portrayal of the brutal Edwin Epps. Mind you, he had his moments of subtle acting that really impressed me - especially in scenes featuring Epps' clashes with his wife or the more subtle attempts of intimidation of Northup. Those moments reminded me why I had been a fan of the actor for years. But Fassbender's Epps mainly came off as a one-dimensional villain with very little subtlety or complexity. Consider the image below in which Fassbender is trying to convey Epps' casual brutality:
For me, it seemed as if the actor is trying just a little too hard. And I suspect that McQueen's direction is to blame for this. I blame both McQueen and Ridley for their failure to reveal Epps' insecurities, which were not only apparent in Northup's memoirs, but also in the 1984 movie. Speaking of McQueen, there were times when I found his direction heavy-handed. This was especially apparent in most of Fassbender's scenes and in sequences in which some of the other characters' dialogue spiraled into speeches. And then there was Hans Zimmer's score. I have been a fan of Zimmer for nearly two decades. But I have to say that I did not particularly care for his work in"12 YEARS A SLAVE". His use of horns in the score struck me as somewhat over-the-top.
Do I feel that "12 YEARS A SLAVE" deserves its acclaim? Well . . . yes. Despite its flaws, it is a very good movie that did not whitewash Solomon Northup's brutal experiences as a slave. And it also featured some exceptional performances, especially from Chiwetel Ejiofor and Lupita Nyong'o. But I also feel that some of the acclaim that the movie has garnered, may have been undeserved. As good as it was, I found it hard to accept that "12 YEARS A SLAVE" was the best movie about American slavery ever made.
