jasherjasher Reviews

The Song of Lunch (2010 TV Movie)

Brilliant singers, bilious song

[1/10 · 26 March 2012]

I was watching PBS last night only to see that Masterpiece Contemporary is going to rebroadcast this next Sunday, which completely ruined my usual pleasant anticipation of what is to come next. I saw this last year when PBS first aired it, and not only was it a waste of time, it was so awful that the depressing awfulness stayed with me long after I watched it. If you really want to see the pointless waste of life and love come to its grimy, inescapable, petty and all-too-human end, watch this. If you want to be depressed and left feeling used after watching, you'll not be disappointed, I promise.

But what's really sad is that two of the greatest actors in British theater -- both brilliant and even believable in this completely self-absorbed, anal-retentive, unceasingly self-obsessive string-of-consciousness piece of crap -- selected this dog to perform in anyway. I was struck by how luminous Emma Thompson still is and how beautifully she has aged, and Alan Rickman is, well, the delight that Alan Rickman always is. And yet even these two could not retrieve the show, or give any hope to their characters' existence.

In fact, now that I think about it, it is entirely possible that their brilliant acting made it as bad as it was, but that just brings me back to my original point: brilliant "singers" but the "song" is still nauseating. If it's the excellence of Alan Rickman's acting that watching his character seriously reminds me of someone who obsessively studies their own boogers and scabs in private, that's not his fault, but proof of both his own talent and the complete uselessness of the character he's playing. Perhaps that's the art of the piece, but it's just not my cup of tea.

I don't want to give spoilers; I will just say that the most extreme definitions one could ever place on the words "narcissistic" and "selfish" are understatements when applied to this plot and its dreary execution. The problem is NOT the actors, it's the play itself. It's depressing as hell and, for me, utterly pointless.

Definitely read all the reviews before watching, because it may be that you are one of the folks who finds the art in this piece and would be absolutely delighted with it. I, unfortunately, am not. I love these particular two players in just about anything -- they could act the phonebook as far as I'm concerned -- but this play is just a depressing dog from start to bitter, useless end, and I felt honor bound to warn others.

Vietnam in HD (2011)

Liked it

[21 November 2011]

I liked this a lot. It seemed that the series strove to maintain a neutral point of view in regard to the causes and/or futility of the war while maintaining focus on the individuals they profiled, and in my opinion they largely succeeded. Unlike a previous reviewer, I did not find it to be overly narcissistic, pro-war, or even all that pro-American, though the focus was definitely on the American experience. Some time was also devoted to other factors, such as life for the families back home, protests and movements, and U.S. administration positions on the war at various points, though the main focus remained with the progress of the war and the battlefields themselves.

Leaving the controversies aside, I thought that what the series tried to do -- portray the experiences of various individuals at certain key places and events in the war -- they did quite well. I also liked the graphics and illustrations and, as opposed to other documentaries I have seen, I thought that these were distributed well and did not get in the way of the real story. The CGI stuff was good and not overdone, in my opinion.

The thing about Vietnam is that once you start discussing the controversies and what we now know to be untruths, it is a discussion without end, full of passion and short on facts, not because of the people discussing it but because the whole thing was based upon a twenty year series of lies and deceptions on the part of the governments involved. Wherever there are lies there will always be arguments, and the subject of the Vietnam war is proof positive of this on a massive scale. This series did not attempt to take any of that on, and wisely so. Though at times I found this irritating -- for instance, the neutral announcement of the events in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 as legal cause for Johnson's escalation, when we now know that at least one of the incidents never happened -- I could recognize it as necessary in telling the story. If they had taken on any one of the many controversies or governmental lies, it would have been a quicksand from which the series would not have recovered. I'm glad they didn't!

It is good to remember that many of those fighting were not volunteers but draftees: it was a federal charge and prison time to dodge the draft. In that light, I do not think that talk of honor and duty is narcissistic or out of place: many did not choose the war, but were sent by force. These went in service to their *country* -- if not the war itself -- and acquitted themselves on a personal level largely with great honor, regardless of the legitimacy of the war or their belief in it. Many times in the series you hear the soldiers referring to the war as a lost cause, and yet they gave their lives for it, if only because that was what they personally felt was the honorable thing to do. I believe that this *personal* honor, courage and heroism on an *individual* level is what this series was trying to bring out, and I think it succeeded very well.

I enjoyed this series in spite of its neutral point of view, and I think it was very nicely done given the incredibly controversial nature of the war and its premises. While I would NOT recommend this series as a primer on Vietnam, nor even a good outline or overview -- you'd be better off going to Wikipedia for that -- it did very well with what it tried to do, and it's well worth a watch if wartime documentaries are something you like. Enjoy!

Jane Eyre (2006)

Ehhhh.

[4/10 · 30 January 2007]

I have seen the 1940's Jane Eyre with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine, and own the 1983 version (Timothy Dalton, Zelah Clarke) as well as the 1997 version with Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton, and all I can say for this adaptation in comparison is.... ehhhh.

I wish I liked it more. I really, really wanted to. I have been a fan of Toby Stephens since Napoleon (his young Tsar Alexander is amazingly powerful) and like Jane Eyre anyway, but just couldn't bring myself to really like this adaptation. Beyond the great production values and cinematography, I kept hearing myself thinking, "What???" and wondering how lost I'd be if I hadn't read the book already.

For instance -- No childhood at the beginning (later we get a 30 second flashback of "Not the red room!" when as an adult Jane returns to Mrs. Reed's bedside, which didn't do much for me).

No intensity to Lowood scenes, or conveyance of their importance in shaping Jane's character. Toward the end of the film when Jane accepts St. John River's offer of a teaching job, she does so on condition of "no beatings", which would have been incredibly puzzling to me if I weren't already familiar with the book and seemed served up more as an afterthought than anything else.

The exaggeration of Blanche's mother into a fully speaking role but without any real reason: once she mentioned her dislike of governesses the first time, there was little to no point in her being there or saying anything. A waste of Francesca Annis, honestly.

No real explanation of how Jane got from Thornfield to Moor House (she lies down on her bed in her room at Thornfield and wakes up disheveled and worse for wear on the moors, at which point she is scooped up by St. John Rivers); it is handled inadequately via brief flashback.

I can't comment on the ouija board scene because I fast forwarded through it. 'Nuff said.

The gypsy scene? Timothy Dalton did that one best, hands down. Toby could have handled playing a gypsy; I am sorry they did not give him opportunity.

The scene where St. John tells Jane they are cousins and explains their relationship, etc: the whole thing was handled almost as an afterthought, almost as though she'd won the lotto but it wasn't really important. Because they did not build up her childhood, either at Gateshead or Lowood, much of what happens later falls flat. Again, if I had not already read the book....

On the casting: I really like Toby Stephens and think him a fine actor. But he was just too gentle and too good looking for this role, I think. Timothy Dalton was also too good looking for the role, but was enough of a bastard that he got it right, as was Orson Welles. Ciaran Hinds was a great Rochester all around. But this Rochester... too much whupped and not enough angry, IMO. The scene where he drags the wedding party back to the house to "meet the wife" was quiet, calm even. So, so wrong.

Also, a small point, but this St. John Rivers was far too likable. He just didn't read cold to me, but warm trying to play cold. His interactions with Jane completely lacked tension; he didn't appear to be upset that she didn't accept his proposal, and she didn't appear too upset that he'd asked without love. It all had an, "Oh, okay, whatever you want..." feel to it. Again, so, so wrong.

This Jane, Ruth Wilson, was not bad... but not the best. As another letter writer noted, she lacked Zelah Clarke's little smile and inner spark, and her face was simply strange to me. (I didn't like Samantha Morton's Jane either, for much the same reasons.) But I will give her this. Of all the times I have heard the lines:

"Do you think, because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little, I am soulless and heartless? You think wrong! -- I have as much soul as you, -- and full as much heart! And if God had gifted me with some beauty and much wealth, I should have made it as hard for you to leave me, as it is now for me to leave you!"

no other actress has brought me to tears with it as this one did. That was one awesome bit of acting!

So, four out of ten. It was watchable, it was interesting, but I won't save the tape or buy the DVD. Great production values, visually interesting and attractive, but not true to the story (much less the book) and somewhat miscast.