Peter O'Toole Oscar Nomination Number Six: An Analysis

PETER O'TOOLE OSCAR NOMINATION NUMBER SIX: 

AN ANALYSIS

On his sixth Academy Award nomination, Peter O'Toole faced yet again more insurmountable odds to have much chance of winning the long-elusive Oscar. Two of his competitors were in Best Picture nominees. Three were already Oscar winners. However, O'Toole's nominated performance for The Stunt Man actually had a slight leg-up on at least two of his fellow Oscar nominees. 

This would be the last nomination that O'Toole received for a film where he was not that film's sole nomination. Out of his eight overall career nominations, three (The Ruling Class, My Favorite Year and Venus) were for films where only his work was singled out for recognition. Out of these, only The Ruling Class came prior to this particular nomination. 

This time, it was different. His Best Actor nomination for The Stunt Man was one of three that the film received. Besides the nod for O'Toole, The Stunt Man received two other surprisingly high-end nominations. One was for Best Adapted Screenplay. The third was for Best Director. This nod is a somewhat ironic nomination given that O'Toole played a tyrannical director in The Stunt Man. This indicates, if not strong support for The Stunt Man, at least a greater awareness among Academy members of the film. For once, Peter O'Toole was not the nominee whose nomination was that film's sole nomination.

That distinction went to Jack Lemmon, who was on his seventh career nomination for Tribute. Lemmon was Tribute's only Oscar nomination that year. As such, it was Lemmon, not O'Toole, who had even less of a chance at winning Best Actor. O'Toole had another advantage when it came to fellow nominee Robert Duvall. The Great Santini had scored only two nominations: one for Duvall as Best Actor and one for Michael O'Keefe as Best Supporting Actor. As such, the chances of Lemmon winning were almost nil. Duvall had a slightly better chance, but not by much. The Great Santini did not leave as great an impression on the Academy as The Stunt Man. In retrospect, Peter O'Toole had a slightly, slightly stronger chance to best two of his rivals.

The unfortunate thing for O'Toole, however, was that his two other nominees were in stronger positions to win. Both Robert De Niro and John Hurt were in films that were tied for the most Oscar nominations that year. Raging Bull and The Elephant Man each received eight nominations. Raging Bull and The Elephant Man were battling it out not just in Best Actor. They faced off against each other in Best Picture, Best Director and Best Film Editing as well. These are major categories, meaning that Academy voters were watching Raging Bull and The Elephant Man more than The Stunt Man, The Great Santini and especially Tribute. 

Where would O'Toole's chances to finally win stand this year? First, let us look at our choices.

The nominees for Best Actor in a Leading Role for 1980 were

Robert De Niro in Raging Bull

Robert Duvall in The Great Santini

John Hurt in The Elephant Man

Jack Lemmon in Tribute

Peter O'Toole in The Stunt Man

It is a most curious coincidence that two of 1980's Best Picture and Best Actor selections were for black-and-white biopics from two legendary directors: Martin Scorsese and David Lynch. Separate from how good or bad Duvall, Lemmon and/or O'Toole were, the battle was always between Robert De Niro as Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull and John Hurt as John Merrick in The Elephant Man. The other three should have just been glad to be invited. I do not think that any of them had any real shot of pulling an upset. 

Jack Lemmon was probably the least likely to surprise. He was already a two-time Oscar winner by this point. His second win for Save the Tiger had been seven years ago. Therefore, one could say that it had been a while. However, it was not that long of a while. Moreover, as already stated, Lemmon was Tribute's sole nomination. He had been nominated the year before for The China Syndrome. That film received four nominations to Tribute's one. Save the Tiger had, like The Stunt Man, three Oscar nominations. 

As a side note, this would be the second of three occasions when Jack Lemmon and Peter O'Toole would face off for Best Actor. They had first battled in 1962 on Peter O'Toole's first nomination and Jack Lemmon's fourth nomination. They would return to dueling for the prize a mere two years later. They lost on each occasion.  

Oddly, if someone was going to ride an overdue narrative, it was not going to be six-time nominee O'Toole. It was going to be three-time nominee Robert Duvall. He had been nominated those three times within nine years. The Great Santini was his third nomination, but it was his second consecutive nomination after his Best Supporting Actor nomination for Apocalypse Now. He had been more consistent in his nominations than O'Toole, who had gone without a nomination since Duvall's first for The Godfather the same year that The Ruling Class had been nominated. Therefore, Robert Duvall was fresh in Academy members' memory. Peter O'Toole was not.

Still, The Stunt Man was a bigger hit than The Great Santini. It also got three major nominations to The Great Santini's two. Was there any chance that Peter O'Toole could have snuck in? Sadly, no. Again, I go back to how Robert De Niro and John Hurt were dominating everyone else. Raging Bull and The Elephant Man are held up as some of the best films of 1980. The Academy gave each eight nominations. This year, the big question was whether Best Actor would go to a black-and-white biopic or to a black-and-white biopic. It was always going to come down between De Niro and Hurt. We know that in the end, Robert De Niro won that fight. He was one of two Oscars for Raging Bull. The Elephant Man went empty-handed, its 0-8 record one of the worst in Academy history. 

Now, how would I have ranked the nominees? Here is my slate in order from Best to Worst:

Robert De Niro

John Hurt

Robert Duvall

Peter O'Toole

Jack Lemmon

I would like to point out that Donald Sutherland never received a competitive Academy Award nomination in the whole of his career. As of this writing, Richard Gere has not received a competitive Academy Award nomination in the whole of his career. Why do I mention that? Well, it is because Jack Lemmon simply has no business being a nominee this year. 

Jack Lemmon in Tribute is an abomination. I sat in stunned disbelief that this hammy, over-the-top, embarrassing performance was nominated for an Academy Award. Tribute is simply dreadful. It is basically a filmed play, and not a particularly good play either. Lemmon originated the role of Scottie Templeton in Tribute on Broadway. For reasons lost to history, no one either in front or behind the camera apparently understood that what works on a stage does not necessarily work in film. Lemmon was hammy throughout Tribute, playing to the rafters where a more toned-down manner would have done much better. He mugs, he prances, he does funny faces and wears funny costumes, even a chicken outfit. I know that they were going for pathos. They ended up with pathetic.

Jack Lemmon took the slot that could and should have been filled by someone who actually acted rather than made faces. Richard Gere in American Gigolo, his star-making turn, would have made a better choice. Donald Sutherland in that year's Best Picture winner Ordinary People would have made a brilliant choice. Every one of Sutherland's costars was nominated: Mary Tyler Moore for Lead Actress and both Judd Hirsh and Timothy Hutton for Best Supporting Actor, with Hutton winning. Yet the Academy overlooked Sutherland's more nuanced performance for Lemmon's cartoonish performance. 

Tommy Lee Jones in Coal Miner's Daughter would also have done better than Jack Lemmon in Tribute. You also had Jack Nicholson in The Shining, Dabney Coleman in 9 to 5 and John Travolta in Urban Cowboy. Those performances and films are still remembered. No one remembers Tribute. It helps that Nicholson, Coleman and Travolta were actually good in The Shining, 9 to 5 and Urban Cowboy. That is something that cannot be said about Jack Lemmon in Tribute. 

Exactly how bad, how flat-out awful was Jack Lemmon in Tribute? Seeing Sam J. Jones nominated for Best Actor in Flash Gordon makes more sense than Jack Lemmon getting nominated for Best Actor in Tribute. I am being somewhat facetious in saying that it would not surprise me if literal bribes were given and taken to get Jack Lemmon nominated for Tribute. That is how awful, bizarre and inexcusable Lemmon's nomination is. 

I cannot express fully just how much I loathe Jack Lemmon in Tribute. This is a simply inexplicable nomination.

So, of the rest, I sadly have to put Peter O'Toole near the bottom. Why? His performance as crazed director Eli Cross was quite good. It is one of his best. Unfortunately, it is also a case of category fraud to me. I had knocked down Forest Whitaker when he beat out Peter O'Toole for The Last King of Scotland because I thought Whitaker was really a Supporting and not Lead performance. 

In the same vein, I think O'Toole was a Supporting and not Lead performance. Had he been nominated for Best Supporting Actor, I think it would it have been a better fit given his role. He also could have actually won. The Stunt Man is not about Eli Cross. It is about the actual stunt man, Cameron (Steve Railsback). He would have been a more logical choice for Best Lead Actor in The Stunt Man than Peter O'Toole was for that film. 

Just as Lemmon essentially stole a spot for a whole slew of better performances, O'Toole did the same here. The difference though is that Peter O'Toole gave a good performance. Jack Lemmon did not. However, Jack Lemmon's nomination, however flawed, was definitely for a Leading Role. Peter O'Toole's nomination was for a Supporting Role passed off as a Leading one.

I wavered long and hard between the last three. Robert Duvall has a couple of strikes against him. First, few people remember The Great Santini. I take into consideration whether a performance has stood the test of time. Duvall's performance as Bull Meechum is nowhere near bad. In many ways, it is quite exceptional. He balances Bull's brutality with a vulnerability that said brutality hides. That being said, Duvall's brief cameo in To Kill a Mockingbird is better remembered than his turn in The Great Santini. 

Second, he is outmatched by at least one of the great screen performances. The Great Santini is well-acted. It is however not held up as one of Robert Duvall's best performances, let alone compared to his other nominees. 

It is to Robert Duvall's credit that he came very close to pushing John Hurt out to third. It is more impressive when you consider that I kept flipping back and forth between Hurt and Robert De Niro for the top spot. Duvall and De Niro in a head-to-head matchup would have been an easy choice: De Niro. What about Hurt and De Niro?

I wavered greatly between Hurt and De Niro. Both are brilliant. Both have stood the test of time. Sometimes I had John Hurt first. Sometimes I had Robert De Niro first. Ultimately, I went with De Niro because of a few reasons. The complaint that John Hurt had the makeup do some of the heavy acting lifting is not an unfair one. I think it helped Hurt's performance. However, that help is a double-edged sword. 

I also thought which one of the two is the one people still remember, still hold up as one of the all-time greats. That goes to De Niro. He transformed completely. It was not just physically, though there is that. De Niro also brought Jake LaMotta's complexity: that rage mixed with regret which made for compelling viewing. People still talk about Robert De Niro in Raging Bull. People do talk about John Hurt in The Elephant Man. 

They just do not talk about it as much as they do about De Niro's performance. 

Robert De Niro should have won Best Actor for Raging Bull over all the other nominees. His Best Actor win stands.

In conclusion, the Academy made the right choice in not awarding Peter O'Toole the Best Actor Oscar on his sixth nomination.

 

The Great Santini: A Review

THE GREAT SANTINI

You can love and hate someone in equal measure. The Great Santini shows us a loving and flawed man whom you recoil at while also finding something of almost nobility within in. 

It is 1962. Vietnam is still just a name on a map. Segregation is still the law of the land. The closest that Marine Lieutenant General Wilbur P. "Bull" Meechum (Robert Duvall) will get to war is flying over the Spanish skies. He is a tough military man, boorish and treating his family like it was a military unit. He is, however, loyal to his wife Lillian (Blythe Danner) and their children. They have two boys and two girls. The oldest is Ben (Kevin O'Keefe), who is about to turn eighteen. His second oldest is Mary Anne (Lisa Jane Persky), who is as sarcastic and dramatic as Ben is not. 

Bull has received orders to go to a new military installation. As such, he gets everyone to drive out at 3 a.m. to Beauford, South Carolina. Bull has arranged for a nice antebellum home for his brood. He also expects everyone to follow his orders. That includes Arrabelle Smalls (Theresa Merritt), their new maid. "I am The Great Santini", he tells Arrabelle on their first meeting. She is more amused but puzzled by his behavior. Arrabelle has her own concerns, chief among them is her son Toomer (Stan Shaw). He lives alone in a remote shack and would be now called a special needs person.

Toomer and Ben become friends despite their different backgrounds. Bull is not prejudiced. He is, however, a bully to his children. Bull cannot admit that he lost a pickup basketball game to Ben, who mockingly calls himself "The Great Bentini". Lillian is supportive of both Bull and Ben. How long this can go on one does not know. Ben's basketball skills get him on the team. Bull's berating manner gets Ben off the team. Toomer faces his own danger from racist bully Red Pettus (David Keith), whom even whites don't like. Ben and Bull must make their own choices about what it is to be a man. For one, it means finally standing up for what he thinks is right. For the other, it means making a great personal sacrifice for his family, his community and his country.

The Great Santini can confuse people by the title. When Bull shouts "I am The Great Santini" to Arrabelle, she replies "I's Arrabelle Smalls, the new maid", then adds that she's never worked for Italians before. Meechum corrects her that they are all Scotch. Like Arrabelle, one might wonder how The Great Santini works when it comes to the Catholic Meechum family. I understand that "The Great Santini" is Meechum's flight name when piloting. It has nothing to do with circuses. 

I will walk that back a bit. The Great Santini is something of a circus, that circus being the Meechum family. The film is about the dynamics between Bull and both his families: the Marines and the blood. Robert Duvall received a Best Actor Oscar nomination for his role of Bull Meechum. It is more than earned. Bull Meechum is boorish, tyrannical, and bigoted. "Hey Lillian, the little homo is sleeping naked", he shouts out when he storms through the house waking the children. He was not referring to Ben. He was referring to his tween son Matthew (Brian Andrews). 

Bull Meechum is arrogant, obnoxious, downright cruel at times. At both basketball games, Bull shocks the viewer by his actions. When he finally loses to Ben for the first time in his life, Bull is enraged. He threatens to knock the freckles off Mary Anne's face with the basketball. In a scene that has gone on to be parodied, he keeps bouncing the basketball off Ben's head while taunting him. In perhaps another actor's hands, Bull would have devolved into a stereotype of the crazed Marine. 

In Duvall's hands though, he allows Wilbur, not Bull or "the Great Santini" to emerge. We see the man behind the braggadocio and strict military manner. On Ben's eighteenth birthday, Bull storms into Ben's room. An annoyed Ben grows more annoyed when he opens his gift, which is an old military flight jacket of Bull's. However, in this scene, we listen to Bull talk about how he rushed to the hospital eighteen years that day to see Lillian and their new son. Duvall lets Bull's quiet, unspoken and unspeakable pride in his son creep out. Here, we get Bull show as much vulnerability as he can.

Duvall is not weepy. He is not blubbery. What he is rather, is quietly proud. He even allows some gentleness to creep out. Bull has pride in having a son. What he also has is pride in Ben, the person. It is in these little moments that we see why despite being mostly awful to everyone, the Meechum family does love Bull.

In another strong and powerful scene, Bull is found drunk in a Beauford park. He is rambling to himself. He will not admit that he is in shock. He is in shock that Ben has at last stood up to him. He is also probably in delayed shock about Toomer's fate. As Bull rambles, we see just how cut off he is. Bull is a Marine through and through. He is also Wilbur, shellshocked that Ben is no longer willing to be a child. He sees how his family has finally rebelled, down to Matthew beating on Bull's legs as Bull grows dangerously violent. In this tense moment, Bull looks down and around, perhaps realizing that he truly is out of control. That someone who prided himself on being in full control, that would be a shock. That he would hurt those he would protect would be more so.

It is a credit to Robert Duvall that we do not end up hating nor sympathizing with Bull Meechum. We also do not feel that he is untrue to how he is. There is no sudden turnaround, no great softening. He is still The Great Santini, but at least he is now a slightly more introspective one.

The Great Santini also won Michael O'Keefe a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his Ben Meechum. O'Keefe seems very close to being a lead performance. I can understand why he is considered Supporting as The Great Santini is not strictly about him. However, I think O'Keefe handles his scenes with Duvall extremely well. His best moments are always with Duvall. There is the aforementioned basketball scene. There is the scene when an enraged Bull comes upon Ben, who had gone against Bull's insistence to stay home rather than listen to Arrabelle's pleas to go to Toomer. 

A sobbing Ben goes up to his father, who promptly slaps his son. "You disobeyed a direct order, Hog! A direct order from your commanding officer!" Bull shouts (he calls his kids "hogs" or "sports fan"). We know what has happened, but Bull initially does not. It makes Ben's tears more impactful. He is not a Marine under Colonel Meechum's command. He is Ben, Wilbur's son, a son who is deeply traumatized by what he has seen. Once Bull sees exactly what has happened, his demeanor changes somewhat. In a softer but still sharp voice he asks Ben, "Why didn't you tell me? Why didn't you say something?". In a mix of anger and sadness, Ben replies, "Nobody tells you anything, Dad". 

He does well with others too. His best non-Duvall scene is with Blythe Danner as the ever patient and Catholic Lillian. Ben is angrily observing Bull practicing basketball in the rain. Lillian comes in and tells Ben that his father is there, not to show that he can beat him at basketball but that he knows that he can't, not without work. She adds that Bull knows that Ben is watching. It is his way of showing Ben both love and respect. Both O'Keefe and Danner are quite effective here.

The scene unfortunately plays like a theatrical production in writer/director Lewis John Carlino's adaptation of Pat Conroy's novel. That would be a minor flaw. What is a more pressing problem is Stan Shaw's Toomer Smalls. Shaw, I think, did his best to play the love child of Forrest Gump and Bubba. Yes, The Great Santini was long before Forrest Gump came along. However, the mannerisms that Shaw gives Toomer: the stuttering, the halting manner, the deliberately blank eyes. To me, it looked too mannered, too determined to play-act than in being. His subplot, while needed, felt a bit off to things. 

It did not help that we never really heard how Toomer's fate affected Arrabelle. It is as if the film used them as plot devices rather than as people. 

Overall, The Great Santini gives us a fascinating portrait of a complex man. Bull is boorish as I've said. he is cruel, even abusive. Yet he is also someone people love and who does love his family. For anyone struggling with loving difficult parents, The Great Santini can show us not how to, but why such a thing is possible. 

DECISION: B+

Mourning Becomes Electra: A Review

MOURNING BECOMES ELECTRA

Sometimes, a project can have so much ambition, so much pedigree, that it collapses under all its pretentious weight. Such is the case with Mourning Becomes Electra, a shockingly dull and at times unintentionally hilarious adaptation of Eugene O'Neill's play. Meant as a showcase for its star, Mourning Becomes Electra ends up as one of that star's greatest screen embarrassments. 

Divided into three parts: Homecoming, The Hunted and The Haunted, our setting for this steamy story of lust among the white savages is post-Civil War New England. Loyal Mannon family servant Seth (Henry Hull) awaits the return of Union General Ezra Mannon (Raymond Massey). This, however, will not be a hero's welcome. The Mannon Manse is filled with sordid mysteries. There is Ezra's black sheep brother David, who knocked up the French maid and was forced to leave with her and their child. 

Then there are Ezra's children. His son Orin (Michael Redgrave) is also returning from the war. His spinster daughter Lavinia (Rosalind Russell) secretly desires sea captain Adam Brant (Leo Genn). Unfortunately, Brant is having an affair with Lavinia's mother Christine (Katina Paxinou), which Lavinia knows about when she followed Brant and broke into his home. Lavinia is courted by Peter Niles (Kirk Douglas), whose sister Hazel (Nancy Coleman) love Orin.

This is all getting very convoluted, isn't it?

Seth then reveals to Vinnie a shocking secret. Adam Brant is David's son! So, Lavinia is lusting after her first cousin and Christine is schtupping her nephew. To be fair, I am unsure that Christine knew of the familial bonds. However, I think that if she did know, she did not care. Ezra, it turns out, was not morally outraged that his brother David was screwing the help. Ezra was upset that David got there first. This devastates Vinnie, who worships her father. Lavinia is clearly a daddy's girl. Orin is clearly a momma's boy. Exactly how intimate any of them want their relationships to be is open to speculation. Mourning Becomes Electra is inches from openly stating that the parents want an incestuous relationship with their kids: Ezra with Vinnie and Christine with Orin.

All of that is before we even get to Part Two. 

Orin has returned, injured but alive. Christine plots to kill Ezra, admitting to a shocked and furious Vinnie that she has always hated him. David hates the unsuspecting Ezra even more, for not having helped him and his mother when she was dying. Lavinia still desires David. David is still screwing Christine. Christine is plotting Ezra's murder, which does happen. Lavinia gives him what she thinks is medicine but turns out to be poisoned, Ezra realizing too late what Christine's wicked schemes are. 

Orin eventually believes Lavinia's story and kills Brant. In despair, Christine kills herself. Yet there is still another hour to go in our sordid saga. Lavinia uses her inheritance to go to the islands, where she had a liaison with hunky native boy Avahanni. Orin, having lost his extremely beloved mother, mocks her for going native in every way possible. He will also punish Vinnie by preventing her marriage to Peter. There are more suicides and lurid suggestions until, now totally alone, Lavinia Mannon locks herself away to become the American Miss Havisham.

Mourning Becomes Electra was meant to showcase Rosalind Russell as a dramatic actress. It was, to use modern parlance, Oscar-bait par excellence. This film was going to win Russell a Best Actress Oscar. It had everything: grand setting, theatrical pedigree, dramatic acting that could be heard all the way to the balcony seats. Despite the grandiose nature of Mourning Becomes Electra, complete with Oscar campaign, it was Loretta Young in The Farmer's Daughter who pulled off what is still considered one of the greatest Oscar upsets in history. 

While most people, granted, do not remember The Farmer's Daughter, they probably remember Mourning Becomes Electra less. The original roadshow film version ran an astonishing two hours and fifty-three minutes. The current version runs two hours and forty minutes. Whatever the runtime is, Mourning Becomes Electra is deadly dull and so full of itself that one watches to see if the actors can get through things without breaking character and breaking out into open laughter.

There is a scene where Russell's Lavinia, Michael Redgrave's Orin and Katina Paxinou's Catherine are all gathered around patriarch Ezra Mannon's corpse. Russell, Redgrave and Paxinou are all so totally over-the-top in their grandiose manner. I can only hope that it was a dummy of Raymond Massey as Ezra. If it wasn't, he deserved Best Actor for not breaking out in howls of laughter being around these three totally crazed actors devouring the scenery in total abandon. 

Massey was not nominated for Best Actor. Redgrave was nominated for Mourning Becomes Electra, the only nomination that he would receive in his career. Why specifically he was singled out I do not know if anyone can answer. It was not a good performance. His monologue with Ezra's corpse is SO DRAMATIC that it becomes farcical.  

Not that anyone else saved themselves deep embarrassment at how theatrical everyone was. Every single performance was almost cartoonish in its unintended hilarity. Early on, I found Rosalind Russell to be a bit grand and overdone as Lavinia. She seemed to be directed by Dudley Nichols (who adapted Eugene O'Neill's play) as if she were Mame Dennis attempting to play a gonzo Lady Macbeth in a Shakesperean parody. Despite the film's setting in New England, Mourning Becomes Electra seems more suited for a Southern gothic spoof. 

The word "overwrought" would have had to have been created to describe Rosalind Russell's performance. Actually, in retrospect the word "overwrought" seems pretty small to how Russell came across. Judging by Mourning Becomes Electra, Rosalind Russell thinks that dramatic acting consists entirely of thrusting one's head and widening their eyes. Had Russell's eyes widened any larger, they would have literally popped out of her head. I am genuinely surprised that Russell's eyes did not literally (and I do mean literally) fly out of her skull. I half-expected them to whenever she thrusted her neck no matter what the situation. Had her peepers thrown themselves out of her face, it would have at least made Mourning Becomes Electra watchable.

I love Rosalind Russell. She was a bright and beautiful talent. However, and perhaps it is wrong to say so, I am so glad that she lost Best Actress for Mourning Becomes Electra. Had she won for this lumbering, dull, overacted and embarrassing snoozefest, it would have permanently ruined her reputation as an actress. It would have ranked as one of the worst Best Actress wins in all film. I think it is because Russell simply tried too damn hard to be dramatic that it ended up looking hilarious. You cannot take the performance seriously when it consists of exaggerated mannerisms that would look idiotic in a silent film. 

Perhaps, looking back on this fiasco, that is why Mourning Becomes Electra is such a spectacular failure. Everyone was trying far too hard to force this to be a gripping drama. Katina Paxinou, coming off a recent Oscar win in For Whom the Bell Tolls, kept up with everyone else in the almost unhinged mannerisms. She and Leo Genn as the man between mother and daughter had more overwrought and cringe scenes. Kirk Douglas, in an early role, saved himself some embarrassment due only to his limited screentime.

I think one of the biggest problems in Mourning Becomes Electra is how it never escapes its stage roots. Late in the film, the various characters have such a lack of interaction with others that it makes the whole thing look like a play. 

The staging is already a problem. The plot really kills the whole thing. Mourning Becomes Electra is an updated adaptation of the Greek Oresteia trilogy of plays. What works in ancient Greece does not work in New England. It does not help that Mourning Becomes Electra has a barely concealed suggestion of incest running through it. You already have mother and daughter fighting over the same man. Then there is the element that Lavinia wants to screw her own cousin even after knowing that Adam is her first cousin. Add to that tawdry mix the very creepy fixation that Lavinia has for daddy Ezra, and that Orin has for mommy Catherine, and it all comes across as grotesque. 

Mourning Becomes Electra fails on pretty much every level imaginable. It is absolutely dull. If one manages to stay awake through the endlessly overcooked performances, one might start laughing at how overcooked they are. "I made a fool out of myself", Lavian a one point says. After suffering through Mourning Becomes Electra, I was not sure if Rosalind Russell was talking as the character or as herself realizing just how laughable her performance was.

DECISION: D-

The Farmer's Daughter (1947): A Review

THE FARMER'S DAUGHTER

Immigrants add so much to the uniqueness of American life. Everything from American cuisine to American vernacular has been enriched by foreign-born people. Politics is no different. In America, a naturalized citizen can rise to high positions of power except for President of the United States. One such success story is chronicled in The Farmer's Daughter. Charming and surprisingly contemporary, The Farmer's Daughter delights in its blend of homespun wisdom and political romance. 

Swedish American Katrin "Katie" Holstrom (Loretta Young) leaves her family's farm to study nursing in Capitol City. Crooked barn painter Adolph (Rhys Williams) offers her a lift to save bus fare but instead hoodwinks her into spending all her money for car repairs. These repairs, caused by his incompetence and efforts to force his attention on the not-so-dumb blonde, leave her penniless. 

Still, Katie is a resourceful Scandinavian. She quickly finds employment as a maid to the politically powerful Morley family. Katie does not initially win over the Morley's cranky butler Joseph Clancy (Charles Bickford). However, she is a good worker who manages to survive Mr. Clancy's cantankerous ways. She also charms Agatha Morley (Ethel Barrymore). Mrs. Morley is the widow of a respected Senator and something of a kingmaker for her political party. She is also the mother of Glen Morley (Joseph Cotten), who is on his third term in Congress. 

Katie has made clear that she will work for the Morleys only temporarily. Her plan is to be their maid just long enough to raise the funds needed to go back to nursing school. However, Katie has become indispensable to the family. Mrs. Morley and Mr. Clancy also see what Glen will not admit: he has fallen in love with Katie. Katie feels the same way, but neither can say it out loud.

One thing that Katie can say out loud are her views on politicians and politics. The Morleys and their party seek out a replacement for a fellow Congressman who has just died. Reluctantly settling on Anders J. Finley (Art Baker), Katie is appalled at the selection. He is thoroughly unsuitable in her eyes. She confronts Finley on his record at his first political rally, much to Agatha and Glen's embarrassment. Katie's open and honest manner inspires the opposition to field their own candidate for Congress: Katrin Holstrom! She agrees to be their candidate, driving a wedge between herself and the Morleys. Her open and honest campaign is at odds with Finley's dirty tricks, culminating in lurid suggestions on her reputation by Adolph to the Finley campaign. Will Agatha and Glen go along with smearing Katie's good name to hold on to power? Will her Swedish brothers help her out of this jam? Will Glen and Katie find that politics does make the strangest but happiest of bedfellows?

The Farmer's Daughter has a special place in Academy Awards history. It is not because of the number of nominations that it received (only two, for Loretta Young as Lead Actress and Charles Bickford as Supporting Actor). It is not because of the film's historical significance. In fact, save for being a television footnote in that it inspired a television series of the same name, The Farmer's Daughter is not well-known. No, the film has that special place because it has one of the biggest upsets of all time in terms of Oscar winners. 

At the 20th Academy Awards, the odds-on favorite to win Best Actress was Rosalind Russell for her performance in Mourning Becomes Electra. Russell was on her third nomination in six years and a back-to-back nominee this year. She was well-liked and respected by her peers. She had also hired publicist Henry Rogers to run her Oscar campaign. Rogers had guided Joan Crawford and Olivia de Havilland to their successful Oscar wins the previous two years. Mouring Becomes Electra was a rich, juicy lurid melodrama meant to showcase Russell's range. She had won the Golden Globe for Best Actress for Mourning Becomes Electra. At the Oscar ceremony, all of that year's Golden Globe winners matched the eventual Oscar winners for Picture, Director, Actor and Supporting Actor/Actress. It stood to reason that Rosalind Russell had the Oscar in the bag.

Russell was so sure that she would win that she literally stood up just as Fredric March announced the winner. The winner, however, was not Rosalind Russell. To audible gasps, the winner was Loretta Young. Young's win seemed to come out of nowhere. This win is more stunning given that all her competition was in heavy dramas, and the Academy then and now is very resistant to comedies. Perhaps another time we can discuss how Loretta Young pulled off one of the greatest surprise Oscar wins in Academy history. For now, let us look at the film.

The Farmer's Daughter is a breezy 97 minutes long. In that runtime, we get a great deal of story that showcases the various actors. Loretta Young maintains solid Swedish accent. It is never cartoonish or exaggerated, a credit to her and her dialect coach. She also shows Katie to be much shrewder than everyone gives her credit for. Early on, she and Adolph are forced to stay in a motel. He pretends to have trouble starting the car. Katie, with a look that shows she is fully aware of Adolph's schemes and intentions, cooly gets the car started. Katie is a smart cookie despite the blonde hair and foreign accent.

Young also shows that Katie is blunt but polite, almost guileless, in her manner. She is serving at a victory party for Glen and his fellow Congressman Wilbur Johnson (Thurston Hall). Johnson asks her if she voted for him. She replies that she had just moved and had not registered to vote in his district. He boasts that she would have voted for him if she could have. "If I could have voted, I wouldn't have voted for you", she replies in a perfectly sweet and matter-of-fact manner. Young says this with such innocence but directness that one laughs. Katie did not tell Johnson this to insult him. She told him this because she is honest. Earlier, she piped in when Morley's cronies deride a former Congressman whom the Holmstrom family knows. When he was described as a second-rate Congressman, Katie says, "Mr. Schmidlapp was first-rate with a second-rate party". 

The Farmer's Daughter does not mention either the state or which party is which. However, I think that the Morleys were Democrats given how Katie was given a speech by the late Senator Morley to practice her English with. The speech was a eulogy for President Woodrow Wilson which criticized the failure to enter the League of Nations. This particular scene is well-shot and directed by H.C.  Potter. As Katie speaks, we see her absorbing the thoughts, reflecting on the meaning. Unbeknownst to her, Mrs. Morley is overhearing her late husband's words. Mr. Clancy is aware of this, but Mrs. Morley silently shushes him. The scene is surprisingly moving.

The film does not skimp out on the love story. Loretta Young plays Katie's growing love for Glen softly and effectively. A glance, a softness in her facial expression, her fainting when she mistakenly thinks that Glen and not Wilbur had died all show how she had fallen in love without overtly saying so. Joseph Cotten is not often thought of as a romantic lead. However, he does a nice job in The Farmer's Daughter. There is a particularly amusing scene when Glen is attempting to impress Katie with his skating prowess. As played by Cotten, he comes across as a lovestruck teen attempting to show off to the girl. There is something almost childlike in Cotten's manner that makes the scene cute. The conclusion will have you smiling if not laughing the way that Katie was.

Glen, as played by Cotten, is a good man. He can be a political creature, willing to pick someone electable versus someone who would be best for the constituents. However, we see that Glen eventually does the right thing by both his morals and by Katie. Charles Bickford was nominated for his performance as the crabby but secretly lovable Joseph Clancy. He is efficient and brooks no foolishness. He also appreciates Katie's solid work ethic and ultimately becomes her friend and ally. As she tearfully leaves the Morley home when starting her campaign, Clancy tells her that he's been with the Morleys for over twenty years. He has supported them and their candidates all these years. This time though, he's going to vote for her. 

Ethel Barrymore is wonderful as the shrewd Agatha Morley. She has great rapport with Bickford's Clancy. While most people refer to them as "Mrs. Morley" and "Mr. Clancy", in their scenes they refer to each other as "Agatha" and "Joseph". This reveals a greater connection than that of employer and employee. There is no hint of romance between them. Rather, it is more one of respect and personal affection.

The Farmer's Daughter is surprisingly contemporary when it comes to politics. Katie comes out in favor of a living wage. When Morley asks her to explain what that is, she replies that a living wage depends on whether you're getting it or receiving it. She also is unafraid to call out politicians who work for their donors rather than their constituents. Katie openly confronting Finley about his past corrupt bargains of giving government contracts to family and friends is something we rarely see now. Such a scene will have the viewer cheering.

The film also targets not just political but moral corruption. While never overtly stated, it is clear from Allen Rivkin and Laura Kerr's screenplay that Adolph is a Ku Klux Klan member. As he tells a clearly displeased Agatha about his "organization", she fills in the information about this organization's goals and memberships. It wants an America that is white, with no foreign born and with "the right kind of religion". This group would therefore not want someone like Katrin Holmstrom due to her immigrant Swedish background. However, Agatha sees that Finley would have no problem not only associating with someone like Adolph but would smear Katie's reputation. Agatha would, very reluctantly, go along with the insinuations of impropriety. The connection to open bigotry, however, is a bridge too far. at the end, she has Adolph thrown out. Clancy, in fury, throws Adolph's hat at him. "YOU FORGOT YOUR HOOD!" he shouts.   

Still, The Farmer's Daughter is not a political film. It is a romantic comedy that involves politics. Charming, sweet and with strong performances all around, The Farmer's Daughter is a film that people should know more of. Raise a cup of glogg for the delightful The Farmer's Daughter, and we'll just pretend that it is Christmas.   

DECISION: B+

Mercy (2026): A Review (Review #2115)

MERCY

I think Chris Pratt is a fine action star. I do not think that he is an actor. There is a difference between the two. As such, when I went to a secret 3-D early screening of Mercy, I asked myself, "Do people want action star Chris Pratt sitting down for most of the film's runtime?". Judging from the tepid reaction that I saw, I would say that the answer is "sorta". Mercy is not particularly good, and certainly not worth 3-D. Still, it is not going to be anywhere near the worst movie of the year.

Detective Chris Raven (Pratt) wakes up hungover, tied to a chair and totally confused. He is shocked to find that he is now on trial for the murder of his wife Nicole (Annabelle Wallis). There is great irony in having Detective Raven on trial in the Mercy court. Mercy is the AI court system meant to streamline justice. The AI is now judge, jury and (if needed) executioner. Detective Raven was not only a strong proponent of Mercy when it debuted, he arrested the first person convicted through Mercy. 

Now, here he is, charged with murder. Mercy's Judge Maddox (Rebecca Ferguson) informs Raven of what he should already know. He has 90 minutes to prove his innocence. Otherwise, he will be executed. Innocent means hitting a probability threshold. I believe it has to be under 40%, but I cannot recall. Currently, he sits at 98% probability. Raven is allowed to make contact with potential witnesses and examine all evidence which is available via data.  

The case is damning against Raven. He is a relapsed alcoholic, still struggling with guilt over the death of his partner Ray Vale (Kenneth Choi). His AA sponsor Rob Nelson (Chris Sullivan) was unaware that Raven had fallen off the wagon. There is endless audio and video footage of Raven being belligerent towards Nicole. He also has a fraught relationship with his daughter Britt (Kylie Rogers). 

As he continues his frenzied investigation, he must rely on his new partner, Jacqueline "Jaq" Diallo (Kalli Reis) to film things and give him the needed information. Could Nicole's potential lover Patrick Burke (Jeff Pierre) be the killer? Could it be someone closer to the Ravens? Perhaps someone who could not only have been at their Sunday cookout but hidden in their house for two days? Time is running out for Chris, so he must hurry to save himself, bring the real killer to justice and save Mercy from total destruction.

I went to see Mercy with my cousins. They are very much opposed to my taking notes while watching. As such, my Mercy memory may be hazy. At the end of Mercy, they all said that they liked it. I said that it was alright, and one of them replied that I was hard to please. I think that in this case, I was more merciful than some of my reviewing brethren. 

Mercy is not good. By the end, Mercy becomes pretty silly even for its premise. It does not help that our two leads are given little to work with.

As stated, I think Chris Pratt is a fine action star. He can be charming, effective and strong when knocking down bad guys or dinosaurs. What he cannot do is act if by acting you mean show dramatic range. Mercy gives us bits of him fighting, such as when we see footage of how many cops it takes to take him down. Mercy, however, keeps Pratt sitting down for nearly the entirety of its short runtime. As he has 90 minutes to prove his innocence, Mercy gives us about 100 minutes to watch all this unfold.

And that is what Mercy does: have us watch all this unfold. It feels a bit like one of those theme park rides where you're sitting in your chair while things go around you. That is not a bad thing, although the last time that I went on Star Tours, I came close to becoming violently ill. You have all these icons and images pass by. You see Instagram/TikTok-like videos of interrogations and the crime scene. You see files fly by Pratt's head.

That is, in and of itself, not a terrible thing. It just takes away from what Chris Pratt does best: show off his action skills. His acting skills have never been particularly strong. Mercy will not make one change that idea. I could cut him some slack in that Pratt essentially has no one to work with. He has to act as if he is talking to Ferguson or Reis. They are not really in the room. However, when we see him in footage, Pratt is not doing particularly well either. Pratt is best when having to shoot weapons, not when attempting to show how much he loves his daughter. 

In a curious criticism, I think Rebecca Ferguson comes across as too human to be an AI figure. I think director Timur Bekmambetov made a mistake in not making Ferguson more dispassionate and robotic. Here, she played Judge Maddox as if she were a person and not a machine. Whether this was a flaw in his directing, Marco van Belle's screenplay or a combination is hard to tell. Ferguson frankly is too good an actress to be in material like Mercy. She certainly is a better actor than Chris Pratt.

The other actors were not particularly good. Again, I will cut them all some slack in that their parts did not require much of anything. Perhaps I can say that they were serviceable and nothing more. 

I think some of the Mercy reviews are a bit over-the-top in their vitriol. It is not great. However, it is serviceable entertainment if you do not ask much from it. I knocked some points down from it because frankly I do not see why Mercy needed to be in 3D. Apart from maybe a fire sequence, I do not see why 3D was necessary. Oftentimes, I would lift my 3D glasses up to see if the picture looked any different. It did not. 3D in Mercy seems a silly gimmick rather than a good use for it.

Mercy is being shown very little by reviewers. I judge films based on what they are attempting to achieve. As such, Mercy would have been barely passable. The 3D element, however, is what ultimately pushed it to a mildly negative rating. Mercy, while not the worst film of the year, will mercifully be forgotten save for eventual late-night viewing. 

DECISION: C-

With Love, Meghan: The Complete Series

WITH LOVE, MEGHAN: THE COMPLETE SERIES

Mentions of "Joy": 21

Mentions of Flower Sprinkles: 7

Passive-Aggressive Moments: 17

Gushing Praise for Markle: Infinite

"One steps out with actresses. One doesn't marry them".

This is allegedly what His Royal Highness Prince Philip told his grandson Prince Henry of Wales when Harry declared his wish to marry American actress Meghan Markle. The Duke of Edinburgh, no stranger to whispers about his own alleged stepping out, was equally blunt when it came to what he thought of the American divorcee about to marry into the House of Windsor. He is alleged to have nicknamed the future Duchess of Sussex "DOW" or "D.O.W." as in "Duchess of Windsor". 

Say what you will about Wallis Simpson. She might have literally cavorted with Nazis; Wallis may have loathed her in-laws. She may have been greedy. However, Her Grace would never have reduced herself to publicly baking cookies or expressed confusion over the word "slurry" for streaming audiences regardless of how much money had been offered her. Wallis Windsor (using Meghan's methodology) may have danced with Hitler, but at least she never appeared on television trapsing about barefoot in her kitchen nor wearing pajamas in public.

Her Royal Highness Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and her better half, known as either "Aitch" or "my husband", opted to step down as working Royals to pursue financial independence away from the British House of Windsor. What did that entail? It entailed among other things the King's daughter-in-law openly wondering why a crêpe felt more special than a pancake, the suggestion of a secret pre-marriage child and waxing rhapsodic about the joys of edible flower sprinkles.

In short, it entailed With Love, Meghan. 

I do not know if "woefully misguided" is the best term to describe With Love, Meghan. Other terms that come to mind are "ego trip", "vanity project" and "television sludge". Boring and bizarre, With Love, Meghan never makes a case for its very existence. 

With Love, Meghan has a set pattern. Mrs. Sussex will tell the production crew who is coming and what she plans to have them do with her. Usually, she will prepare something ahead of their arrival. She will also almost always present her guest star a gift. Sometimes the gift will be when they arrive. Sometimes it will be when they depart. Once they do arrive, the guest(s) will share in the joyful work. On occasion, Meghan will share some deep thought that sounds inane. Her guest(s) will almost always tell her how wonderful she is or how wonderful it is to be with her or how wonderful it is to be doing whatever it is that they are doing. Once the specific task is completed, Meghan and her guest(s) will marvel at how joyful everything has been. The Carolina shag soundtrack aims at keeping the cool, upbeat vibe that With Love, Meghan aims at.  

Officially, With Love, Meghan has two seasons. I am in the minority in holding that it has one season split into two parts. There will be no second/third season. 

With Love, Meghan consists of sixteen episodes and a holiday special that make the Star Wars Holiday Special look like Citizen Kane in comparison. At least the Star Wars Holiday Special had Bea Arthur singing a tender ballad to aliens in rubber masks. I doubt anyone wants Meghan Markle, or Sussex, or Mountbatten-Windsor, or Saxe-Coburg & Gotha to belt out a coquettish song-and-dance to a Wookie. However, I would not put it past her to do so if she were paid enough.

There are many, oh but many, issues when it comes to With Love, Meghan. I will start with perhaps a curious one: her total lack of engagement. Mrs. Sussex trained as an actress. I have long thought that this is why she never looks at us the viewer. If one endures any With Love, Meghan episode, you will see that the only people that she actually looks at are the production crew. Most often than not, it is director Michael Steed. She'll call him by name from time to time. She might even throw shade at him. 

However, because she talks only to Steed, Markle fails to connect with her viewers. All television hosts from Martha Stewart to Bob Vila, from Liberace to Bob Ross, will look directly into the camera. That direct eye contact creates intimacy between host and viewer. We, the viewing audience, are the metaphorical guests. Looking at us in the eye welcomes us, invites us, encourages us to partake in the activities.

Markle flat-out refuses to do so. She will look at others and speak to others. She will not look and speak to us. When she fails to speak or look at us, she is perhaps subconsciously, perhaps not, creating a barrier between herself and viewer. Markle never creates intimacy between herself and the viewer. It keeps us at a distance. That makes it hard to impossible to care about anything that she does or says. It is the most curious and damnable thing. Meghan wants us to be there. Meghan wants us to see her as pleasant, relatable, relaxed. Meghan wants us to look upon her as a kind guide to positive living.

Yet she will never look at us. Her insistence on keeping viewers at a distance has a terrible result. It suggests that she actually does not want us there, unless it is to take instructions from her. By not looking at us, the viewer ends up feeling excluded and unwelcomed. It is the exact opposite of what I figure With Love, Meghan is aiming for. It sends a clear message from Meghan, with animosity: I, Meghan Sussex, am here to teach you because you are so beneath me. 

I am absolutely astonished that no one, Steed in particular, ever directed her to look directly into the camera. Markle not doing so was deadly because it again suggested a total lack of intimacy. No amount of Carolina shag music, of edible flower sprinkles or proclamations of "JOY!" make up for a hostess who is so thoroughly disengaged with her audience. In some episodes, it almost appeared as though Markle was not even talking to her own guests. She was more addressing them, telling them what they were going to do. I figure that the guests had previously agreed to make whatever craft or meal that Markle was going to have them do. However, that too suggested that the guests were there not as actual friends or acquaintances but as students.  

It is curious that when Prince Edward, now Duke of Edinburgh, hosted his own documentary series Crown and Country, he had no problem looking directly into the camera. He understood that the host has to engage the viewer directly. That engagement is done through direct visual contact. I cannot emphasis just what a bad decision it was to have Meghan Markle never look at us.

Another issue is on lifestyle content. With Love, Meghan proclaimed that it "reimagines the genre of lifestyle programming, blending practical how-to's and candid conversations with friends, new and old". Yet the how-to's do not seem very practical or even sensible. I go back to Santa Barbara Sea Urchin. Meghan wants viewers to prepare Santa Barbara Sea Urchin for a party. She wants viewers to swamp their guests with gifts. She expresses astonishment at air pumps for balloons. She creates a children's party without having any children present. 

I struggle with the idea that giving a child a parting party bag of seeds and trowels is practical on any level. What child is going to go to a child's birthday party to grow vegetables and eat sea urchin? Granted, she did not propose serving sea urchin at the children's party. However, it is not beyond the realm of imagination for her to make such a deranged suggestion. Children, at least the ones that I know, like cake and toys at birthday parties. They do not want spades as a party gift bag, unless they can use them as swords. Meghan Markle comes across as very controlling and tightly-wound. I can imagine that any children unfortunate enough to attend a Markle-organized birthday party for Prince Archie or Princess Lilibet would feel very constricted and restricted. 

They would not be allowed to run around and roughhouse. They would not be allowed to throw the gift bag seeds at each other. They would not be allowed to pop the ballons. I am not surprised that there were no children at the children's party that Meghan created. They would not behave like elegant, sophisticated adults. Even young Sheldon Cooper would think Meghan Markle was excessive in her formality.

As for conversations with friends, old and new, With Love, Meghan never had that. There was never any sense of relaxation or joy when Meghan was with anyone. Everyone, rather, seemed to be there to praise the Hostess with the Mostess. The winner in that department is Vicky Tsai from Elevating the Everyday, though Love is in the Details' Delfina Figueras gave Tsai a good run for her money. Meghan rarely sat down and chatted with her guests. We did not learn much about people like Tsai or Figueras or Heather Dorak. 

Dorak is an interesting case. She is supposed to be one of Markle's oldest and dearest friends. However, I do not recall hearing much from her in A Weekend Away. Instead, we heard a lot from and about Meghan Markle. Mrs. Sussex does have some chefs attend to her. However, they hardly count as guests because they did not come to be served but to serve. We did not learn much about people like Roy Choi or Clare Smyth as people. We did see that when another chef, Ramon Velasquez, corrected Markle's food handling, the Duchess of Sussex could barely contain her rage. 

It is a curious thing that I was unaware that Will Guidara was married to Christine Tosi. Guidara was Meghan's guest on Holiday Celebration. Tosi had been Meghan's guest on A Sweet and Savory Adventure. It is in how little Meghan either mentioned or seemed to care about either of them that Tosi's connection to Guidara was learned on Holiday Celebration despite Tosi having been a With Love, Meghan guest before. 

Conversations are meant to be relaxing and joyful. Given how visibly angry Markle was at Mindy Kaling when she dared call her "Meghan Markle" instead of "Meghan Sussex", I cannot imagine that it was fun, relaxing afternoon. 

Perhaps the worst element in and of With Love, Meghan is that the show is simply boring. Meghan Markle is a dreadful hostess. One senses that she is forcing herself to speak softly. I think that she thinks that this is the tone of voice one should have for television. To my ears, her soft tone comes across as controlled and manufactured. Like her inability or refusal to look directly at us, it keeps us at a distance. The various dishes presented are far too esoteric for my tastes. Crudites and gougères are things that I think most people have never heard of, let alone want to make or serve.

Not that the elements of elegant living are less opaque to oddball. I have gone decades without hearing about such things as water marbling or lavender towels. I do not know why anyone would want to do such things. Perhaps for work, but not for fun.

Over and over again, I kept seeing Meghan Markle as like a crazed summer camp leader in charge of arts & crafts. Making s'mores. Making Christmas crackers. Making mugs. Making beeswax candles. These are all things that I can imagine those at Camp Anawanna having to do. Seeing adults do them seems very, well, frankly loony. I do not think that the guests were having fun or joy participating in this psychotic Girl Scout Jamboree. 

As a side note, think of "camp" in any way you wish.

With Love, Meghan is something that I found totally schizophrenic. It wants to be joyful but comes across as dull. It wants to be relaxed but comes across as tense. It wants to be relatable but comes across as aloof. It wants to be warm but comes across as cold and brittle. 

Perhaps in the end, With Love, Meghan reflects, unintentionally, how Meghan Markle actually is.

Queen Mary once admonished a member of the royal family for complaining about their duties. "You are a member of the British Royal Family. We are never tired and we all love hospitals", the Empress of India scolded the miscreant. Her Majesty was communicating that as Royals they had to put duty above self. They never show physical exhaustion and participate in the most mundane activities. If they had to pull a cord to unveil a plaque declaring something open, they did. If they had to meet hundreds of people who worked as sanitation workers, they did. 

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Aitch opted not to. They were convinced that their star power alone would draw people to their rival Court. My sense is that Meghan thought people would flock to see her show how she lived a life of grace and elegance. After all, she is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

Instead, we saw in With Love, Meghan a fading star rush around barefoot or in pajamas while gushing about the joys of edible flower sprinkles. Queen Mary famously refused to ever receive the Duchess of Windsor, a pledge that she kept to her dying day. Queen Mary referred to Wallis Simpson as "an adventuress". Who would have thought that The Adventuress would be the embodiment of royal decorum compared to The Starlet.

History repeating itself?

Average Episode: 3.4

Indictment: The McMartin Trial. The Television Movie

INDICTMENT: THE MCMARTIN TRIAL

The idea that an accusation equals guilt is not a new one. Indictment: The McMartin Trial chronicles one of the most infamous court cases in American history. A shocking tale of frenzied panic overruling common sense, Indictment's impact still hits the viewer.

Christine Johnson (Chelsea Field) on August 12, 1983, makes a shocking accusation against the staff of the McMartin Daycare. She claims that her son Malcolm has been sexually molested by people there. Twenty-six days later, the police start arresting everyone in the McMartin preschool. There is the sole man, Ray Buckey (Henry Thomas), grandson of McMartin owner Virginia Thompson (Sada Thompson). There is Ray's sister Peggy Ann (Allison Elliott) and their mother Peggy (Shirley Knight). Other employees are arrested as well. The last arrest is that of Virginia McMartin, hauled off in her wheelchair before intense media attention.

Attorney Danny Davis (James Woods) takes the case. He believes the McMartins and the daycare to be guilty. He also knows that this will be great publicity. Facing off against Davis is Los Angeles District Office prosecutor Lael Rubin (Mercedes Ruehl). It is not long before Los Angeles television reporter Wayne Satz (Mark Blum) reports the shocking allegations, never questioning their veracity or looking into them. The case soon becomes a media storm. The storm increases thanks to the work of Kee McFarlane (Lolita Davidovich). She is the director of the Children's Institute International that interviews hundreds of children, all of whom allege all sorts of accusations. The District Attorney's Office is overwhelmed with information and trusts McFarlane and the CII's notes from the videotapes to prosecute the case.

All but ADA Glenn Stevens (Joe Urla). He reads Johnson's statement and thinks that it is the ramblings of a mentally unstable person. His concerns are brushed off by Rubin. Children wouldn't lie. Believe all children is the DA's Office mantra. Yet can the children be believed? There are inconsistencies in their stories. McFarlane's questionings, down to showing the children anatomically correct dolls, seem to be more pressuring kids to remember things that they initially insist did not happen. One, for example, remembers Ray molesting him even though Ray had left the preschool by the time. Other stories become more outlandish. There are tales of Mrs. McMartin wheeling herself naked in a circle. Another child claims to have been made to perform satanic rituals in a church and made to drink the blood of rabbits. One child identifies two men from pictures as his sexual molesters. One of the identified is action film star Chuck Norris.

Davis sees that the growing hysteria is blinding people to reasonable doubt. The mob mentality against the McMartins, who are psychologically tortured by everyone around them, arouses his anger. Stevens too is deeply troubled by how the case is growing out of control. Stevens is more troubled when Johnson at one point calls him and claims that someone has sexually molested her dog. Yet the prosecution and persecution continue. For all the Sturm und Drang of the case, the longest trial in American history results in no convictions and ruined lives.

When the MeToo movement was at its zenith, the mantra was "Believe Women" and "Believe All Women". Sexual assault accusations are very serious matters. So is the presumption of innocence. Whenever I heard "Believe Women/Believe All Women", my mind went back to the McMartin trial. Then, it was "Believe the Children". The accusations of child molestation were so shocking that people, included initially Davis and Stevens, believed that everyone accused was guilty. After all, children would not lie. Indictment shows that while the children may not have directly or deliberately lied, they could be manipulated or pressured into saying what the adult wanted to hear. 

Abby & Myra Mann's screenplay and Mick Jackson's direction shows us this in simple ways. As Davis, Ray and Peggy Ann Buckey watch the videotapes, we see McFarlane's questionable questioning methods. Using puppets, McFarlane seems dismissive whenever a child says that no one touched them in their private parts. When she finally gets the answer that she liked, we hear McFarlane squeak out "AMAZING!". The empty courtroom where they watch starts echoing "AMAZING!" over and over. The camera pulls back further and further away. It is a subtle but effective way to show how these dubious methods are reverberating. 

Other moments are more chilling but no less effective. As one of the child witnesses continues his bizarre story of drinking rabbit blood and robed figures in hoods, the reporters listening in another room look at each other in shock and disbelief. I initially thought that they would find such a story so ludicrous that they would openly question whether any of it was true. Instead, they all rush onto the halls, call their various outlets and report the story as more "shocking revelations". 

That no adult ever questioned the logic of some of the charges no matter how bonkers they were never ceases to amaze and trouble me. As Davis and his second go to the remains of the McMartin preschool (it having been attacked by arson for a second time), Davis comments that there are no closets where the children claim to have been taken in and molested. One child says that they were driven to a local supermarket and made to parade naked in their storeroom. Davis goes to the market and finds that the storeroom is openly visible to everyone. It would be impossible to have a nude fashion show there. Yet again, neither the DA's Office nor the opportunistic Satz ever questioned or appeared to investigate the charges.

Indictment has solid performances from the cast. James Woods in an Emmy-nominated performance has rapid-fire intensity to Danny Davis. We see his shift from someone who does not care to someone enraged by how the DA's Office and press is destroying the McMartins. He has a wonderful moment with the equally strong Henry Thomas as Ray Starkey. As he prepares Starkey for his testimony on the witness stand, we see Davis berate Ray the way that the prosecutor would. We then see how he comforts him, telling Ray that he gets up there and tells the truth, he will win.

Shirley Knight, who won an Emmy Award for her performances, is heartbreaking as Peggy. In one particularly somber scene, Peggy is forced to strip and be examined by two disinterested female officers. The officers show her no kindness as they make this old woman bend over. "Can I put my clothes on?", a visibly distraught and humiliated Peggy asks. The officers ignore her, continuing their conversation on their weekend plans. It is hard to not feel for the horror that Peggy is going through. This is a woman who had to ask what a "dildo" was.

Her costar Sara Thompson was also nominated for Emmy recognition as Virginia McMartin. Seeing the wheelchair-bound woman rise on her crutches and tell the judge that she was leaving shows the righteous fury of a falsely accused woman. Thompson later has a strong scene with Elliott. Peggy Ann observes her grandmother watching kids at play. She asks her how she could not be bitter after all they've gone through. Virginia replies that she is not bitter enough to smile at seeing children at play.

Henry Thomas makes it believable to see Ray as a bit creepy in his manner and look. Davis on their first meeting tells him that with his glasses, he does look like a child molester. Thomas has his best scenes when on the stand. Facing off against an equally strong Mercedes Ruehl, he shows how Ray has a backbone. He responds calmly and firmly against Ruben's charges and insinuations. She brings up his past interests in pyramids and how he was a virgin until age 24. He turns the tables against her increasingly eccentric connections between pyramids and lurid sexual tastes.

It is a credit to Mercedes Ruehl that we do not end up hating her as Lael Rubin. She does, at least initially, appear to be motivated by a genuine concern for children. It is only later, as more evidence for doubt comes in, that Rubin appears more villainous. It is as if Rubin, fully committed to the case, now becomes increasingly stubborn, refusing to admit that she was wrong. 

We do end up hating Lolita Davidovich's Kee McFarlane. She grows more arrogant and smugger on the witness stand. That she and Wayne Satz were having an intimate relationship makes it all the more appalling. Mark Blum's Satz was downright evil as the reporter whose sense of infallibility and unquestioning belief in children being made to partake in satanic rituals shields him from any sense of responsibility. Joe Urla is unsung as Glenn Stevens, the ADA who is the first to see that the accusations have serious room for doubt.

Indictment: The McMartin Trial is a shocking and tragic tale of how the mere accusation is enough to create panic, paranoia and hysteria. Sadly, some things have not change. We still have people accused of all sorts of things and their accusers believed no questions asked. The lessons from the McMartin trial have yet to be learned. Indictment: The McMartin Trial however will remind us that accusers should be heard but not unquestionably believed. 

9/10