With Love, Meghan Episode Eleven: Easy as Pie

WITH LOVE, MEGHAN: EASY AS PIE

Original Airdate: August 26, 2025

Special Guest: Tan France

Mentions of "Joy": 2

Mentions of Edible Flower Sprinkles: Yes

Passive-Aggressive Moments: 1

Gushing Praise for Markle: "All right, yeah. I'm envious of your life".

Her Royal Highness Meghan, Duchess of Sussex finally has the perfect accessory that every wealthy liberal woman needs: a sassy gay sidekick to trade quips and quiche with. Easy as Pie showcases our dynamic duo doing what they do best. For one, it is sweetly delivered snark. For the other, it is sweetly delivered insincerity. Fortunately, Easy as Pie lets them swap places with abandon.  

What is France known for? The wines? The croissants? Being cheese-eating surrender monkeys? They are, I doubt, known for their tans. That is until now, when the Hostess with the Mostess welcomes one of the hosts of Netflix's Queer Eye for a full day of fun and frolics. Meghan is excited that fashion expert Tan France is stopping by her rented Montecito home/studio. She stops at a bookstore before his arrival to pick up some items for Mr. and Mr. France's children, Isaac and Ismael. "Half of the joy of the gift is the presentation", the Duchess gushes as she instructs us on how to wrap these gifts of love.

I pause at this moment to marvel at how Mr. and Mr. France came to choose these two Biblical names for the sons that they are raising. Ismael and Isaac were, according to the Old Testament, half-brothers. Ismael, the older one, was the son of Abraham and his maidservant Hagar, whom Islamists claim descendance from. The younger son, Isaac, was the son of Abraham and his wife Sarah, who is one of the Jewish patriarchs and listed among Jesus' ancestors via his foster father Joseph. The conflict between Ismael and Isaac is the metaphorical genesis of the Arab/Israeli conflict. Mr. and Mr. France even got the birth order right, with Ismael being the older of the two. I find the selected names Ismael and Isaac France to be, well, interesting on many levels. Yet, I digress.

Well, with "fashion expert and television host" France finally arriving, said fun and frolics can begin. First, a little lavender grey latte. "Doesn't it just sound chic?", the Duchess shares with the world's foremost gay Muslim. Tan takes to his surroundings like a pink duck to water. "I'm going to take this off", he says, referring to the sweater hanging about him. He begins removing it. "Are you...let me put it somewhere", Meghan says. Tossing caution and his sweater to the wind, Tan just throws it out to the With Love, Meghan crew. Looking a bit befuddled if not downright astonished, the Duchess of Sussex seems as thrown off as Tan France's sweater by his antics. "Fabulous! Make yourself at home. I love it!" she declares. 

I am not convinced that Meghan Markle did indeed love it.

As they prepare the lattes and coconut French toast, Meghan cannot resist adding her favorite condiment to the dish. "What was that that you just added?", France asks. Somewhat sheepishly, Meghan squeals, "Flower sprinkles. I love them". Now it is France's turn to be befuddled if not downright astonished. "Wow", he says, slightly blank-faced. "That's the gayest (bleep) I've seen in a long time".

This cooking done, they head off to the craft barn. Here, they will make aprons for their children to wear when they make their own crafts. As they design them, France rejects a rainbow for the apron. "Too gay, too on-the-nose", he says. 

It's back to the kitchen for some pie baking. We learn from Mr. France that Mr. France prepares for the spicy food Mr. France makes for Mr. France with Tums. As part of the pie preparations, Meghan tells us, "We're going to make a little slurry. My friend Vicky taught me that word". Dear God but does this woman still go on about that. 

As a side note, perhaps my hearing is off. However, judging from the audio in Easy as Pie, it sounds as if that "slurry" quip was added in post-production. It does not sound as if it was recorded during the actual taping. It just sounds different. My less generous side thinks that Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor just wants to make another dig at Vicky Tsai.  

We learn the separate love stories of Mr. and Mrs. Sussex and Mr. and Mr. France. We also learn that Meghan Markle's musical tastes are quite suburban. 

"Honestly, one of the things that I miss most about the UK is the radio station called Magic", she says. "Magic FM? Wow!", our out Pride of Doncaster says. "Now, I'm sorry to say this to you, uh, publicly, but that's such a grandma station". Meghan is taken slightly aback for a second time. To showcase her pride in Mom Rock, she plugs in Lisa Stanfield's All Around the World courtesy of Mom Jeans on Sirius XM. We have a flashback to My Guide to Furoshiki Wrapping. This Japanese method of gift wrapping will come in handy for yet another gift that Meghan will give to Tan. It is a masala dabba that Meghan bought "a year or so ago" and was waiting for the perfect opportunity and recipient to bestow upon. At last, she has found the best gay British Pakistani for this treasure. The former Tamveer Safdar is overwhelmed with his masala dabba. "That actually has given me goosebumps. That is so beautiful. I will pass this down to my children. That's how beautiful that is", he informs us all.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was less emotional when Pakistan was formally established than Tamveer Safdar was on receiving this royal gift. I do not know anyone who ever got so excited about being given a regifted item as Tan France. Now, with the day closing, these two new BFFs can enjoy a lovely California sunset. 

Easy as Pie is my first encounter with Tam France. I did watch the original Queer Eye for the Straight Guy but have never delved into the revamped version. Easy as Pie does not make me yearn for more adventures with the Fab Five Remix. 

Despite that, I did end up liking Tan France. I genuinely could not tell if he was sincere or not with his enthusiasm to be with Meghan. He certainly had no issue being pleasantly insulting to the Duchess of Sussex. France did not care where his sweater went. Seeing Meghan look a bit put off by him not waiting for so much as a hanger made me smile. His ability to kindly insult her was a highlight of Easy as Pie. Past guests may have been perplexed to leery about the Duchess' flower sprinkle fixation. France was pretty much openly dismissive of it.  

France has a soft, soothing voice, perfect for children's bedtime stories. I doubt that he will read the Book of Genesis to Ismael and Isaac though. What I liked about France was how he was unafraid to throw shade at the Duchess. He throws his sweater to the crew (or on the floor). I imagine that this would make the meticulous Meghan Markle mad. France is oblivious at minimum. He openly mocks her love for edible flower sprinkles. He ridicules her tastes in music. Granted, he uses "gay" as a slight pejorative. I suppose that he can get away with it. I do not think it is appropriate even for a gay man to use "gay" as a negative descriptive, but there it is.

Tan France may have mocked Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. However, the executive producer of With Love, Meghan did something in Easy as Pie that I do not remember her doing for any previous guest. She had a post-credit scene for him. We saw France create a little face mask out of green tea and Greek yogurt. The less charitable side of me thinks that Markle included this to show him dab this concoction on one side of his face. Perhaps she thought he looked idiotic. I cannot say if that was the intention. Perhaps the audience was given the ingredients for this face mask via the QR code. Frankly, I would be astonished if anyone actually wanted to smear green tea and Greek yogurt on their face.

Easy as Pie at 38 minutes is the longest With Love, Meghan episode of the second batch. The viewer feels every bit of it. I put it down in part to having so much thrown at us. We have the book gift wrapping. We have the embossing devices that she will give France for a France family project. We have the latte and French toast making. We have the apron making, which is another take-home project. We have the pie making. We have the masala dabba presentation. We have the concluding sunset beach visit.

I have, with some justification, been accused of planning too much when I travel with family and friends. However, Markle's myriad of arts and crafts projects would overwhelm any sane person. France may have gushed over Markle's generosity. I am not convinced though that either Mr. France or Mr. France will ever emboss the books that Mrs. Sussex presented to them. 

Easy as Pie makes the case that Meghan Markle Saxe-Coburg & Gotha is pretty much a loon. She is so desperate to present this warm, affable, cheerful facade. She has that endless Carolina shag music that is always aiming to present a casual vibe, but which tries too hard to do so. A lot of what she says attempts to sound so sugary-sweet and joyful. Defending her trademark edible flower sprinkles, she says, "I really like things to look beautiful". Later on, during the pie making, she again defends her culinary choices. "It's not going to make it taste bad", she says. "It's going to make it tasted loved".

The last time someone went on this much about love was when Mr. Burns was still high on his age-defying injections and Springfield mistook him for an alien. 

I once compared Meghan Sussex with Election's Tracy Flick. Easy as Pie made me see her as another fictional character. Here, she reminded me of Dolores Umbridge. Easy as Pie and With Love, Meghan in general always attempts to showcase the Duchess of Sussex as a wise teacher who wants only to bring elegance and yes, joy, into people's lives. There is the incessantly upbeat music, always trying to create a cheerful, relaxed atmosphere. There is Markle's efforts to sound delightful, full of shout-outs to "love" and "joy". There is her gushing towards her guests, almost always presenting gifts and other "tokens of love" to her guests.

Underneath all that upbeat veneer though, one senses that Meghan Markle just doesn't like people. A surprisingly revelatory moment is when she waxes rhapsodic about Magic FM. This tidbit, along with her love of soft rock, I'm sure was meant to make her endearing and relatable. What did surprise me as I watched Easy as Pie was that she called Magic FM "one of the things I miss most about the UK". 

It made me wonder if she missed her in-laws. Does she miss her brother-in-law and his wife, the future King and Queen? Does she miss her father and stepmother-in-law, the current King and Queen? Does she miss her nephews and niece, whom she has not seen in five years? Does she miss the British people whom she had pledged to serve as a working Royal? Does she miss the British countryside or the many palaces and royal lodges scattered about? Does she miss the nation as a whole? 

She does not seem to miss her estranged father, Thomas Markle. Yet I again digress.

Yes, she said that Magic FM was "one of the things I miss most about the UK". Maybe she does genuinely miss King Charles III and Queen Camilla, or TRH William, Prince of Wales and Catherine, Princess of Wales. She might even miss Anne, Princess Royal. However, my sense is that she does not.

Easy as Pie keeps to one With Love, Meghan tradition. That tradition is in having the guests go on about how wonderful the Duchess of Sussex is. "No, you've really inspired me. I'm not just saying that", France tells her as they prepare this rather elaborate breakfast for their children. I think the qualifier there suggests that he is just saying that. Seeing this grown man come close to tears at receiving the rather beat-up masala dabba and declaring it will become a France family heirloom is a sight. 

I've wandered a bit to say that Tan France is one of With Love, Meghan's better guests because he throws so much shade at the Duchess. Even things that may not have been intended as shade somehow come across as such.   

If there is one thing that Mrs. Sussex and Mr. France share, it is how they throw their respective spouses under the bus. Meghan calls Mr. Sussex "my husband" twice. I do not think that she has ever called him "Harry" on With Love, Meghan. Sometimes she'll say "Aitch" as in the first letter of his name. She seems to treat the word "Harry" like some voodoo curse that cannot be spoken. It is not as if we do not know who her husband is. Curiously, Tan does the same thing. He never said "Rob". He too would say "my husband". Worse, Tan basically stated that "my husband" does nothing but bake bread and needs Tums to get through Tan's Indian dishes. It is almost to where one wonders if those aprons would have been for Rob France rather than Ismael and Isaac France.

I still cannot believe that people would name their children after the biggest pair of sibling rivalry in all Scripture. Well, perhaps Jacob and Esau are bigger, but I digress.

Easy as Pie puts the Duchess of Sussex as she wishes to be seen. She wishes to be seen as an instructor, guiding people into lives of elegance and joy. She wishes to be seen as friendly, warm and welcoming. She wishes to be seen as a winner (Tan telling her that her aprons "won" because of her calligraphy).  Having her new sassy gay BFF throw a few barbs at her does make Easy as Pie more enjoyable to watch. 

There is simply no way to get through any With Love, Meghan episode without massive qualities of booze. Easy as Pie shows that it takes a Queer Eye to endure this royal Hostess with the Mostess. 

Tan France has the right idea. 

3/10

Peter O'Toole Oscar Nomination Number Seven: An Analysis

PETER O'TOOLE OSCAR NOMINATION NUMBER SEVEN: 

AN ANALYSIS

Here is the thing about Peter O'Toole's seventh Best Actor Oscar nomination. He had absolutely no chance of winning. At the most, at the very most, he had, I think, a one percent chance of winning. I think I'm being generous in giving him even that much of a chance. Separate whether his performance in My Favorite Year was good or not, O'Toole was never going to win for My Favorite Year.

The reasons are pretty simple. First, three of his four fellow Best Actor nominees were up for roles that are now seen as some of their most definitive performances. Dustin Hoffman was nominated for his cross-dressing turn in Tootsie, which is still one of his most memorable roles decades after the film's release. The Verdict is, I think, one of Paul Newman's greatest performances. In fact, many people still erroneously think that Paul Newman won Best Actor for The Verdict when he actually won for The Color of Money. The eventual winner, Ben Kingsley, is seen still as the title character in Gandhi. I think the final nominated performance, Jack Lemmon in Missing, is not as well-remembered as the other aforementioned three. More people, I would argue, remember Lemmon for Some Like it Hot or The Odd Couple than for Missing. I think Lemmon's turn in Dad is better remembered than his performance in Missing. Yet, I digress.

Second, O'Toole's competitors were in mostly dramas. Tootsie is, I would argue, a dramedy. While there are moments of humor in the film, I think Tootsie was using comedy to make important, dare I say, dramatic, points. Even if I were to say that Tootsie was a straight-up comedy, that would not have helped O'Toole. The Academy is extremely parsimonious when it comes to recognizing comedic performances. Tootsie was a comedy but one with elements of drama. My Favorite Year had no such aspirations. It was a pure romp and never pretended to be anything else. Comedic performances almost never win. My Favorite Year was not going to be the one to break the mold. 

Third and I think more importantly, O'Toole's fellow nominees were all nominated for films that were nominated for multiple Oscars. Every single one of his competitors was in a Best Picture nominee (with E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial being the final Best Picture nominee). Gandhi was the most nominated film for 1982 with eleven nominations in total. Tootsie followed close with ten nominations (though two were in the same category of Supporting Actress). The Verdict had five nominations, and Missing had four nominations. Amidst all those 30 nominations combined for his competition, comes little old Peter O'Toole for My Favorite Year. 

O'Toole was My Favorite Year's sole Academy Award nomination. 

It is pretty much impossible for anyone to win an Oscar if it is that film's sole nomination. It is not completely impossible, but it is extremely difficult. For anyone to win an Oscar on that film's sole nomination, particularly in the acting category, other factors are needed to get the win. Take Julianne Moore's win for Still Alice. Moore was that film's sole nomination but her fifth career nomination overall. I think there was an "overdue" narrative for Moore that got her the win. She is a well-respected, well-regarded and well-liked actress who had lost four times before. Still Alice was, to my mind, a de facto Lifetime Achievement Oscar. The Academy could pat itself on the back, tell itself it had done right by Moore, and then move on.

I should note that as of this writing, Julianne Moore has yet to receive another Oscar nomination. 

The best or worst recent example is Glenn Close's nomination for The Wife. This was Close's seventh nomination. She was predicted to win easily, basically in a landslide, for The Wife. Unfortunately, people let sentiment blind them. The Wife received one nomination, that being Close's Best Actress nod. Her competition had multiple Oscar nominations: ten for both Roma and the eventual Best Actress winner The Favourite, eight for A Star is Born and three for Can You Ever Forgive Me? This meant that, despite the "inevitable win" narrative for Close, more people were looking at the other films than looking at The Wife. Moreover, the "inevitable win" narrative, I've long argued, doomed Close's chances. So many voters, convinced that Close was going to win anyway, opted to vote for other candidates. That in turn led to Close actually losing precisely because basically no one was voting for her owing to the idea that everyone was voting for her. 

Such was not the case for Peter O'Toole. There was no "overdue" narrative for O'Toole despite this being his seventh nomination. There was no groundswell of support for him or for My Favorite Year. That support instead was going to Paul Newman. Newman was, coincidentally, on his seventh overall career nomination: six for acting and one for producing Rachel, Rachel. He was an extremely popular and beloved member of the industry. The Verdict was a critical and commercial hit. If anyone was going to ride the "overdue" narrative to an Oscar win, it was going to be Paul Newman, not Peter O'Toole. It was to where, years later, Ben Kingsley said that just before the winner was announced, he turned to his then-wife and said, "Ready to stand up for Paul Newman?". 

As such, one can see why Peter O'Toole was never going to win for My Favorite Year. The bigger question is why and how Paul Newman lost. That is for another time. However, let us look at the nominated performances and see how and where Peter O'Toole would rank. 

First, the Best Actor nominees of 1982 in alphabetical order. The nominees were:

Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie

Ben Kingsley in Gandhi

Jack Lemmon in Missing

Paul Newman in The Verdict

Peter O'Toole in My Favorite Year

It is a sign of how even Peter O'Toole knew that he had no chance of winning that O'Toole was the sole Best Actor nominee to not appear at the ceremony. Now, could there have been a way for Peter O'Toole to somehow defy the odds and pull one of the greatest upsets in Oscar history?

Absolutely not. The battle between two nominees was simply too strong for O'Toole to overcome. Why not three or four? I think that Dustin Hoffman had pretty much very little chance of winning Best Actor. Tootsie is one of his most remembered roles. The film was a financial and critical hit. It received ten Oscar nominations, the second highest number that year.

It ultimately won exactly one, for Jessica Lange in Supporting Actress. That suggests to me that despite the great love Tootsie had among audiences and Academy members, there was little support for it. Tootsie was a successful and popular comedy. Gandhi was "an important film". I suspect that Academy members may have felt that Tootsie was not "serious enough" to merit Oscar recognition. It also may have thought that it got enough of a reward financially, so it didn't need more with Oscar wins.

Lange's win was, I think, not a consolation prize for Tootsie itself. It was a consolation prize for Jessica Lange. Lange was nominated in both Supporting and Lead Actress for Tootsie and Frances respectively. I think that unlike Best Actor, the Best Actress race was pretty much a given for Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice. I do not know if any of Streep's fellow nominees: Missing's Sissy Spacek, Debra Winger's An Officer and a Gentleman or Julie Andrews' Victor/Victoria would have mounted a serious threat to Streep. One thing was certain: Jessica Lange wasn't winning Best Actress for Frances. Therefore, here was a chance to kill two birds with one stone. You could reward Lange for losing Best Actress while throwing Tootsie a bone. 

O'Toole and Hoffman lost because My Favorite Year and Tootsie were comedies. Interestingly enough, both expressed similar views in a roundabout way. As swashbuckling movie star Alan Swann says in My Favorite Year, "Dying is easy. Comedy is hard". Reflecting years later on Tootsie, Dustin Hoffman once started crying, commenting that he did not see it as a comedy. "Comedy is a serious business", he said. 

Why then do I dismiss Jack Lemmon's chances to win? He was a two-time Oscar winner on his eighth nomination for Missing. His performance in the film is a strong piece of dramatic acting. Lemmon sometimes deliberately underplays scenes. He does not go for big moments. Instead, some of the most effective work he does in Missing is when he is quiet and still. However, as stated, he was already a two-time Oscar winner on his eighth nomination. Why reward him with a third when you had three other men who were not even on their first win?

So, the Best Actor race was down to two men: Paul Newman and Ben Kingsley. Almost all indicators suggested that Paul Newman was going to, at long last, win his very first Oscar. This was, as mentioned, his sixth acting nomination without a win. The Verdict was a hit film. Newman's performance is an acting masterclass. The Verdict is considered one of if not Newman's finest hour.

Many people might have focused on the number "six" as in acting Oscar nominations for Paul Newman. They might have even focused on "seven" if they remembered his Best Picture nomination. They should have focused on two other set of numbers. 

11-5 and 8-0. 

Those are the respective number of nominations and wins for Gandhi and The Verdict respectively.

Gandhi had double the nominations of The Verdict. Gandhi was sweeping the awards while The Verdict was going empty-handed. Gandhi and The Verdict faced off in three categories: Picture, Director and Actor. Gandhi won each one. It also won Best Original Screenplay while The Verdict lost Best Adapted Screenplay. Gandhi was, as stated previously, seen as an "important film". The Verdict was seen as "a very good film". Importance trumped good. 

Sentiment and "overdue" was no match for the Gandhi juggernaut. Paul Newman got crushed by the sheer massiveness of Gandhi. I think there was a slight version of the "Glenn Close Effect". Perhaps voters expected Newman to win, so they could switch over to someone else. I do not think, though, that such a thing was big enough to get Kingsley in and Newman out. There was no big rally for Kingsley's performance. I think many voters were just checking off the Gandhi box no matter what category.

In retrospect, some of Gandhi's win in some technical categories seems downright baffling. Gandhi won Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction and Best Cinematography. I do not think people these forty-plus years later are still talking about Gandhi's Art Direction. I'm not even sure that they were talking about Gandhi's Art Direction then. 

Gandhi's only losses were in Original Score, Sound and Makeup. The first two went to E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial, a film whose music is still recognized. The third went to Quest for Fire. Granted, it might not be well-remembered now. However, Quest for Fire is a film about early cavemen. It was also one of only two Best Makeup nominees, meaning it had only Gandhi to compete with. Fantasy makeup tends to win over historical epic makeup. Case in point: Men in Black winning Best Makeup over Titanic.

Ultimately, Peter O'Toole was never going to win on his seventh Best Actor nomination for My Favorite Year. Paul Newman losing was also not a surprise given Gandhi's dominance. Sadly, Peter O'Toole would go once again unrewarded, though at least here it makes sense on how it happened.

And now, my Ranking of the Five Nominees:

Paul Newman

Ben Kingsley

Peter O'Toole

Jack Lemmon

Dustin Hoffman

Personally, I think each of the nominated performances are excellent. I do not have an issue with any of the nominations. I would not be upset if any of them had ended up winning. I wavered quite a bit between Kingsley and O'Toole for second place. My heart is with O'Toole's wonderfully hilarious turn as Alan Swann, this crazed thespian who utters one of the greatest lines in film, "I'm not an actor, I'm a MOVIE STAR!". However, whatever one may think of Gandhi's Oscar-winning screenplay (another odd win in my opinion), people do still remember Ben Kingsley's performance as the Mahatma. It is a fine performance on a technical level. I cannot say that Kingsley was a bad win.

I can and do say that Paul Newman gave the performance of the year in The Verdict. It was raw, heartbreaking and heart-rousing. His evolution from deeply self-loathing and drunken to slowly, steadily recovering his humanity is an astonishing turn. I think in any other year, Paul Newman would have won easily. Sadly, the Indian lawyer taking the Raj down also took down the redeemed lawyer.

Jack Lemmon gets knocked down because I think most people do not remember Missing or his performance in it. More people remember Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie than they do Lemmon in Missing. So why then do I have Hoffman last? I think it has to do with the fact that in some ways, Dustin Hoffman was playing a version of his public persona as a Method actor who can also be a demanding diva. 

Why do I have Peter O'Toole smack dab in the middle? I think it is because "comedy is hard". O'Toole does have a couple of nice, quiet, dramatic moments amidst the hilarity and hijinks. On a technical level, I think Peter O'Toole's performance is solid. However, both Kingsley and especially Newman edge him out.

Paul Newman should have won Best Actor for The Verdict over Ben Kingsley for Gandhi. 

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

Tootsie: A Review

TOOTSIE

Struggling, temperamental actors find that life can be a drag in Tootsie. Blending satire and sincerity, Tootsie works as a strong dramedy.

Michael Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman) considers himself a great actor. Unfortunately, few people consider him for any Broadway or even off-off Broadway roles. It is not his talent that is in question. Rather, it is his temperament. As his frustrated agent George Fields (director Sydney Pollack) points out, Dorsey held up filming for a commercial and caused filming to go over schedule because he did not believe that his character would sit down.

Dorsey's character in said commercial? A tomato.

Dorsey stumbles into an opportunity thanks to Sandy Lester (Teri Garr), one of his acting students. He has been training her to audition for the soap opera Southwest General. Sandy is quickly dismissed. Michael Dorsey, in desperation for work and a chance to earn money to help his roommate Jeff Slater (Bill Murray) fund a play, auditions for the part. Now in full drag as "Dorothy Michaels", Michael Dorsey gets the role of hospital administrator Emily Kimberly.

Michael as Dorothy soon starts embracing the woman within. He does not like what he sees. Ham actor John Van Horn (George Gaynes) is bumbling and insists on hitting on all his female costars. Southwest General's director Ron Carlisle (Dabney Colman) is not much better. Van Horn at heart is merely clueless. Carlisle is downright sexist. He is also romantically involved with Julie Nichols (Jessica Lange), who refers to her character as "the hospital slut". Julie, a single mother to a toddler, is quite sweet off camera. She loves both her daughter and her father Les (Charles Durning). 

"Dorothy" soon takes America by storm for her portrayal of a stronger female role than usually seen on television. She starts bonding with Julie, which is complicated for several reasons. One reason is that Michael has fallen in love with Julie. Another is that he is attempting a romantic relationship with Sandy owing to his need for a dress. A third is that Les, a widower, has fallen in love with Dorothy. In all this, Julie ends up thinking that Dorothy is a lesbian, Sandy ends up thinking that Michael is gay, and Les (real name Leslie) ends up thinking that Dorothy would make for a good fiancée. As if all that were not enough, Southwest General wants to extend Dorothy's contract. That would force him to keep his cross-dressing act even longer. Will an unexpected live taping of Southwest General give Dorothy Michaels a chance to show his masculine side? What will the fallout of Michael coming out as a man be?

Prior to this, my second viewing of the film, my only real connection to Tootsie was how at one job that I had, our manager was nicknamed "Tootsie" by her very frustrated staff. Said manager was a woman by the way. She just bore an unfortunate resemblance to a taller Dustin Hoffmann in drag. Make of that what you will.

Tootsie is an intelligent comedy. It balances the farcical elements of a man playing a woman with more serious issues like sexism. Michael Dorsey sees this sexism on many fronts. He sees it in Southwest General's writing, where his character is asked to be more docile and willing to take the sexual advances of Van Horn's doctor. He sees it also in how Ron Carlisle uses the male crew's names but will refer to actresses like "Dorothy Michaels" as sweetheart, toots or "tootsie". 

This is not to say that Tootsie, written by Larry Gelbart and Murray Schisgal from a story by Gelbart and Don McGuire, is a screed. Far from it. Somehow, Carlisle came across at times almost as delightfully flustered. The film is certainly kind to George Gaynes' John Van Horn. Van Horn is not a bad man. He, I am tempted to say, isn't even sexist or chauvinistic. Instead, he is just dumb. 

George Gaynes is an underappreciated element in Tootsie. His efforts at wooing Dorothy are hilarious. He calls himself an untalented has-been. "Were you ever famous?", Dorothy asks. "No", he replies, slightly befuddled. "Then how could you be a has-been?" Dorothy replies. He, in his defense, stops his efforts to woo Dorothy when Jeff comes home to their apartment. George, thinking that Jeff is Dorothy's boyfriend, sheepishly leaves. Later in Tootsie, his reaction to Dorothy exposing himself as Michael is a perfect punchline.

After Emily Kimberly unmasks herself as Emily's twin brother Edward, the Southwest General cast and crew are absolutely flabbergasted. Ron, in the directing booth, feels vindicated. "I KNEW there was a reason she didn't like me!", he exclaims joyfully. Julie reacts by punching Michael in the stomach. As everyone looks around in confusion and shock, Gaynes' John Van Horn looks around and innocently asks the now-unmasked Michael, "Does Jeff know?". 

It is the perfect way to punctuate this wild scene. I think it is comparable to Joe E. Brown's closing line from Some Like It Hot, another gender-bending comedy.

Tootsie is filled with top-notch performances all around. Dustin Hoffmann received an Oscar nomination for his role as Michael Dorsey and Dorothy Michaels (in something of a joke, Hoffmann is billed twice as both characters). He is good all-around, playing the temperamental Michael Dorsey, Michael Dorsey playing "Dorothy Michaels" and Dorothy playing Emily Kimberly. Hoffmann has to play essentially several roles, sometimes simultaneously. He is wonderful when working with the equally strong Pollack as Michael's frustrated and flustered agent George Fields. 

Dabney Colman, like George Gaynes, was so terribly underappreciated in his career. His Ron Carlisle was arrogant and at times dismissive. However, Colman made him almost likeable. I said "almost", for he still was not a pleasant or kind person. Still, it is a credit to Colman's skills that this can be seen as different from a previous male chauvinist pig role he played in 9 to 5. Bill Murray brought the right amount of eccentricity and sarcasm to Jeff, who is fully confident in his play Return to the Love Canal, no matter how oddball that play's actual premise is.

Charles Durning might have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Tootsie if he had not been nominated that same year for The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. He balanced Les' sincerity of affection for Dorothy with genuine shock and eventual forgiveness for the deception. Michael, appearing in Return to the Love Canal in regional theater, encounters Les at Les' favorite bar. Charles Durning's facial expressions are great. He shifts from pleasant to angry effortlessly. 

Both Jessica Lange and Teri Garr were nominated for Best Supporting Actress, with Lange winning. The former brought a genuine sweetness and almost innocence to her character. Julie is her father's daughter: loving, caring and kindhearted. She, however, has a gentle vulnerability that eventually shifts to a quiet strength. Garr is wacky and amusing as Sandy Lester, the acting student hoodwinked repeatedly by Michael. 

We also see another future Oscar winner in a small role. As April Paige, another Southwest General starlet, Geena Davis has fun moments putting Michael/Dorothy in uncomfortable situations. Dorothy first sees April in her underwear while sharing a dressing room, putting the cross-dressing Michael in an awkward position. Later on, Dorothy tells April that "she" sees the younger cast members as daughters. She adds that she wants to give her daughters "tits". April looks up, perplexed, with Dorothy attempting to correct herself by saying "tips" repeatedly. The Freudian slip adds to the humor.

One of Tootsie's nine Oscar nominations was for the song It Might Be You, heard during a montage of Dorothy, Julie and Les spending time at Les' country home. It Might Be You is a nice, gentle song that is pleasing and delightful. More in keeping to the comedy is the title song, heard during a montage of "Dorothy Michael" becoming a star. Long before it became a musical, Tootsie had at least two good songs.

I do think that the extended section of "Uncle Dorothy" babysitting went on too long. I also wonder if Dustin Hoffmann was in a way playing a spoof of his public persona as the ultimate "brilliant but difficult actor". I struggled believing that Michael could fool Sandy into thinking that he wanted them to become lovers or that Sandy would willingly put up with his repeated failures to show up for their dates. 

Those are minor issues. Tootsie is a strong, amusing film that will have one laughing and give people pause for thought. There's no "toot, toot, tootsie, goodbye" here. 

DECISION: B+

Missing (1982): A Review

MISSING

The Chilean coup that overthrew socialist President Salvador Allende and led by General Augusto Pinochet occurred on September 11, 1973. This curious historical coincidence has led some to refer to the coup as "the other September 11th". I think that is a disservice to compare the events in 1973 to those of September 11th, 2001. That, however, does not diminish the horrors that those murdered in the immediate aftermath of the coup d'etat suffered. Missing chronicles the brutality of the 1973 coup through the experiences of one family. It is a well-acted, directed and written film that one remembers long after the credits roll.

American expatriates Charlie and Beth Horman (John Shea and Sissy Spacek) are mixed about living in Chile. Charlie, who is working on an animated film and translates for a left-wing newspaper, wants to stay. Housewife Beth would rather leave. The constant shooting around her, the curfews, the overall stress and terror of the situation is wearing on her. After visiting some friends, Beth misses the bus and is forced to live out a night of terror, hiding from the military when she fails to get home by curfew.

Her failing to make curfew and hiding on the streets may have ultimately saved Beth's life. She returns to their home to find it in shambles, ransacked and Charlie now missing. In desperation, she makes contact with her estranged father-in-law, Edmund (Jack Lemmon). Ed, a devoted Christian Scientist, has never been supportive of his son and daughter-in-law's liberal to radical politics. Arriving in a militarized and paranoid Santiago, Chile, Ed and Beth are civil but opposed when it comes to several matters.

Ed, having already worked with government official in the U.S., believes that the American embassy can help locate Charlie. Beth has worked with both American and Chilean officials. She has found them ranging from indifferent to downright hostile. Ed also holds Beth and Charlie partially responsible for Charlie's disappearance.

As Ed and Beth join forces, the extent of what happened to both Charlie and Chile becomes clearer and more alarming. Charlie in flashbacks finds retired and current American military officers in the resort town of Vina del Mar. Charlie, who was forced to stay overnight in Vina del Mar with his platonic friend Terry (Melonie Mayron), soon starts wondering why they are there at all. Ed and Beth manage to find one of Charlie's friends, David Holloway (Keith Szarabajka). Holloway was one of two last Americans swept up in early raids. He was taken to the National Stadium along another of Charlie's colleagues, Frank Teruggi (Joe Regalbuto). David lived.

The week keeps going. Ed soon starts understanding how the American government will be less than helpful if not downright complicit. He will see just how tied they are to what has happened both to Chile and to Charlie. Eventually, the truth about Charlie Horman is found.

Missing does something that makes it more effective. Under Costa-Gavras' direction, the film has no big scenes, no great drama to push the story forward. Far from it, as Missing is a surprisingly quiet film. Even an earthquake late in the film does not build up to something epic.

In that scene, as Ed and Beth along with the other alarmed hotel guests attempt to walk out, they are warned not to. One couple, cradling their child, ignores the dual proclamations of curfew and the hotel's building integrity. We hear the gunshots coming from outside. While we are relieved to see them return, almost comically, back inside, Missing shows us exactly what kind of state the Hormans are in.

In fact, we rarely see many acts of overt violence. Most of the terror is implied, sometimes in the most unexpected ways. When David and Frank are taken to the National Stadium, we overhear this exchange in Spanish.

"Where do you work?", a soldier asks one of the prisoners who has come up to his table.

"The Senate", the man replies, surprisingly calmly.

"What do you do there?", the soldier asks.

"I'm a Senator", is the reply.

Throughout Missing, the horrors of the junta retribution are visible but not dwelt on. We see the bloody corpses on the street. As Ed and Beth go to another hospital, a group calls out for everyone to see something outside the window. Everyone can then see another human corpse being carried by the current. The matter-of-fact manner to Missing makes things more chilling. It is to where when Ed and Beth are told that there will be an extra charge to send Charlie's body home that needs to be paid immediately, the viewer feels that mix of disbelief and rage.

Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek received Lead Actor and Actress Oscar nominations for Missing. Both, I think, did excellent work. Lemmon makes Ed Horman a very calm and rational man in a chaotic and irrational world. Often, he underplays scenes. He can get angry, most often at Beth and by extension Charlie. However, as Missing continues, we see this steady man slowly crumble. 

When quietly informed by someone of Charlie's true fate, Lemmon does not start wailing or having a big breakdown. Instead, we see Ed struggling between accepting what he now knows and the truth of the wild goose chase that he was purposefully sent on. One of the hardest moments in Missing is when he and Beth finally are allowed to go to the National Stadium, which has become an unofficial prison/detention center. The hope to find Charlie fading, Ed at first cannot bring himself to use the public address system he's been permitted to. Beth calls out for Charlie. Ed then can muster the courage to call out for his son. Given all that we have seen, we should know that the young man running to the foreground is not Charlie. In Lemmon's face, however, we see that faint hope he carries given some life. 

Sissy Spacek does fine work as Beth. She is more openly cynical about American involvement both in the coup and in functionaries being terribly unhelpful. However, she also sees that Ed is not dumb. He is at heart a good, decent man who holds to his shattering ideals. He can be dismissive of Charlie's works and views. He also, Beth sees by the end, is a father who does love his son.

Missing, in a curious way, shows that Ed still has not given up on his American idealism. As he and Beth finally leave Chile, Ed is visibly but quietly angry at the American embassy flunkies. "I just thank God we live in a country where we can still put people like you in jail", he tells them. Many people might scoff at that idea. However, I see it as revealing that Ed Horman still has faith despite the cruelty of it all. This is a man who amidst all the chaos both external and internal managed to find time to visit a Christian Science Reading Room. Faith, both religious and political, is important to Ed. Missing shows that despite all the horrors he has seen and endured, his moral compass is still solid. Ed does not shrink from trying to stop violent acts, even if it is dangerous. Ed's morality makes him heroic and tragic.

This ability to keep things grounded and simple may be why Missing won Best Adapted Screenplay. Costa-Gavras and Donald Stewart adapted Thomas Hauser's nonfiction book The Execution of Charles Horman: An American Sacrifice into a somber, intelligent film that keeps a metaphorical human face on this overwhelming tragedy. Costa-Gavras did similar work in his Oscar-nominated directing. There is nothing flashy in Missing. When Frank Turoggi is found, the camera goes first to Beth and Ed, and then slowly rises upwards, to see the other spread out corpses. Often in Missing, no one has to say a word to know just how shocking things are.

One aspect in Missing that was not Oscar-nominated was Vangelis' score. Missing, particularly its gentle, somber main theme, is haunting, elegant and moving. Like much in the film, the Main Theme from Missing serves as counterpoint to the brutality of the situation.

Missing is a strong film on all levels. It is more than a chronicle of one person caught up in a shocking situation. It is an ode to how small figures can still display great courage even when facing massive odds.   

DECISION: B+

The Hours: A Review (Review #2090)

THE HOURS

The complicated lives of complex women across the generations are chronicled in The Hours. A film that features strong performances and a surprisingly coherent story despite the three separate time periods, The Hours is a good film if not good entertainment.

The Hours covers three time periods as previously stated though they do eventually tie into each other. They are 1923 Richmond, England, 1951 Los Angeles and 2001 New York City. Each section is connected to the Virginia Woolf novel Mrs. Dalloway. The film weaves each story throughout its runtime.

The 1923 section centers around Mrs. Dalloway authoress Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman). Virginia struggles with mental health issues. For her own safety and supposed peace of mind, her husband Leonard (Stephen Dillane) has moved her and a whole printing press to the London suburb of Richmond. Virginia is somewhat looking forward to her sister Vanessa's (Miranda Richardson) visit for dinner. Vanessa comes far earlier than expected, along with Vanessa's children. After this visit, Virginia attempts to go to London unsupervised. Leonard, alarmed to learn that she is not at home, races to the train station. Here, Virginia states that she is suffocating and needs to live. Virginia makes it clear that while her life is in danger by her own hand, she must be allowed to live it freely.

The 1951 section is on housewife Laura Brown (Julianne Moore). It is her husband Dan's (John C. Reilley) birthday, and she will make a cake. They have a son, Richie (Jack Rovello) and is pregnant with their second child. Things look good on the outside for the Browns. However, Laura is also suffocating in her own way. As she continues reading Mrs. Dalloway, she finds life is beginning to overwhelm her. This is more so when her friend Kitty (Toni Collette) stops by. Kitty is having a medical procedure for a certain women's issue. Kitty attempts to sound optimistic but is quietly terrified. A surprise kiss from Laura startles them both. Laura, having finished a second cake, goes to a posh hotel, leaving Richie in a friend's care. She takes Mrs. Dalloway and several pills with her. Will she follow in Virginia Woolf's steps to suicide?

The 2001 section has Clarissa Vaughn (Meryl Streep) prepare for a party. Echoing the plot of Mrs. Dalloway, Clarissa wants to have things ready for her friend and one-time romantic partner Richard (Ed Harris). Richard, a poet struggling with AIDS, has been awarded the Carruthers Prize for lifetime achievement. Despite both Richard and Clarissa being gay, they consider their college relationship one of their great loves. Clarissa's current partner Sally (Allison Janney) and daughter Julia (Claire Danes) are quietly supportive. Clarissa has also invited Richard's ex-lover Louis Waters (Jeff Daniels), who has mixed feelings about both Richard and the party. Clarissa loves Richard, but will Richard follow in Virginia Woolf's steps to suicide? In the end, Richard's estranged mother comes, completing the circle in The Hours.

The Hours is what I would call respectable cinema. It is posh, elegant, well-acted and flows surprisingly well despite the three separate time periods. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences was impressed enough with The Hours to give the film nine Oscar nominations including Best Picture. Curiously though, it lost in all but one category: Best Actress for Nicole Kidman. More curious, at least to me, is that Kidman is the third billed actress in The Hours after Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore, the latter nominated for Best Supporting Actress.

I have not read Michael Cunningham's novel that David Hare adapted in his Oscar-nominated screenplay. As such, I cannot say how close or far The Hours was from book to screen. I do give credit that The Hours, as stated, never felt as if any of the sections collided or jammed their way in. One also does not have to have read the novel to know that 1951's Richie would pop up in 2001. I figured that out right away as soon as Laura called her son "Richie".

I give you one guess to find the connection. Personally, I found it quite obvious and would be surprised if others did not make an immediate connection. Yet, I digress.

The Hours is a strong film. Peter Boyle's Oscar-nominated editing works excellently. There is no sense that one story forces its way into another. Instead, the film flows quite smoothly between 1923, 1951 and 2001. We see each section move chronologically within the overall story. It does not go from the earliest to the latest time period. If it did, I did not notice it enough to let it get me out of the film.

Another remarkable element in The Hours is Philip Glass' Oscar-nominated score. The music is typical Glass, with a lot of repetition. However, Glass creates an elegant and elegiac score. The music set the mood for these interlocking tales of unfulfilled lives. The closing theme is so beautiful that one listens to it in rapt attention, marveling at its elegance.

Two of the three central performances were singled out for Oscar consideration. Julianne Moore is fine as Laura, the highly depressed and suicidal mother drowning (metaphorically and in a dream sequence, literally) in suburban ennui. I did think that Moore was at times a bit too dramatic, almost stilted in her "I'M MISERABLE" manner. I did not think that Moore was terrible. I do wonder if Moore was reverting to her Far from Heaven manner. If Julianne Moore performances are reflective of Eisenhower's America, all white housewives led lives of quiet despair.

Nicole Kidman was singled out for her performance as Virginia Woolf. I am not going to delve into Kidman's prosthetic nose. I find the focus on the nostril rather silly. Instead, let us focus on her acting. It is quite good. Kidman reveals Woolf's mix of frustration, despair and optimistic rage. She is a creative woman, fully aware of both her place in society and the danger her personal health puts her in. Of particular note is when she expresses her frustration at the stifling yet safe world of Richmond. 

Kidman is good here precisely because she isn't raging or ranting. Instead, Kidman is controlled in her anger, frustration and overwhelming sense of despair. Kidman's Virginia Woolf is someone who wants to live life, even if it will lead her to drowning herself. 

Meryl Streep does well as Clarissa, the woman who is close to living out Mrs. Dalloway. Streep has strong moments where we see Clarissa's own despair. Her scene with an equally strong Jeff Daniels reveals a woman who is working to keep things going while aware that things are going awry. Less strong are her scenes with Ed Harris. This is more on Harris' part than on Streep's. Their scenes seemed more stage-set, as if they were in a play than attempting to act out real life. The two twists involving the dying Richard's illness and connection to the overall story were anything but. I knew both who Richard was and what his fate would be. It is to where I wondered if Hare's screenplay or Stephen Daldry's direction intended to make things obvious.

In their supporting roles, Claire Danes and Allison Janney did well in the 2001 section. The aforementioned Jeff Daniels brought a touch of tragedy and regret to his Louis, the man who left Richard. He had essentially one scene, but he made the most of it. Miranda Richardson's Vanessa was effective, showing a loving yet frustrated side to Virginia's sister. John C. Reilley was probably the weakest part. It veered more towards a parody of a stereotypical 1950's husband and father versus a real person.  

The Hours focuses, intentionally or not, less on the similar struggles that women in general have to be free and independent as themselves. Instead, again intentionally or not, The Hours has all three women be lesbians. Virginia Woolf was somewhat closeted in real life. Laura Brown kisses Kitty fully on the lips, confusing both. Clarissa is an open lesbian. I do not know why The Hours had three lesbians as our three female protagonists. Granted, we never saw Virginia Woolf or Laura Brown involved with any woman sexually. Woolf's kiss with her sister Vanessa was a bit curious, though. Laura kissing Kitty pretty much came out of nowhere.

On the whole though, I have to give The Hours credit for achieving its goal of putting these three stories and melding them into one overall story. "The poet will die, the visionary," Kidman's Virginia Woolf is heard to say. One can see that she, metaphorically, is speaking about someone else in the far future. That someone, we learn, is tied to a distraught mother who needed to escape for a life of her own. Yes, it ties in together surprisingly well. The Hours benefits from strong performances and production work that make it good viewing. 

One need not be afraid of this Virginia Woolf. 

DECISION: B+

Hamnet: A Review

HAMNET

Exactly how much of an author/authoress' life they put in their work is never certain. Sometimes, I think people look too deeply in a writer or playwright's work. Such may be the case with Hamnet, the tale of woe when it comes to a great tragedy in the life of William Shakespeare. Decent performances keep the somber to self-serious Hamnet from being a total bore.

A young glover's son (Paul Mescal) is working off his father's debts by being a Latin tutor to a group of the lender's children. Out in the woods is the lender's oldest daughter, Agnes (Jessie Buckley). She is different from other women. Agnes (pronounced Ahn-yes) is a mistress of falconry. She is also rumored to be the daughter of a forest witch. Her herbal skills allow her to heal the glover's son's head wound. Her otherworldliness consumes his lust. While the glover John (David Wilmot) and his wife Mary (Emily Watson) are not pleased, their son and Agnes must marry when he knocks her up. Agnes' brother Bartholomew (Joe Alwyn) is equally displeased.

Nevertheless, Agnes and her now-Husband begin their life together. They have first a daughter, Susanna (Bodi Rai Breathnach). Agnes knows that there will be only two daughters for her. Therefore, she is initially puzzled over why her second child is a boy. She is also extremely upset that, unlike with Susanna, Agnes was both unable and forbidden to sneak off into the forest to give birth. Agnes' confusion grows when she discovers that she actually will have twins. The second child, a girl, appears to be stillborn, but the girl miraculously is revived.

Now Agnes and her Husband are the parents of Susanna and twins Hamnet (Jacobi Jupe) and Judith (Olivia Lynes). Her husband, a struggling poet and playwright, must pursue his muse in London. As such, Husband is not there when Judith becomes ill with the plague. The bond between Judith and Hamnet is so strong that he transfers his life for hers. Somehow, Hamnet has tricked Death itself, taking him instead of Judith. 

Agnes is grieved beyond herself. She berates her Husband for not being there when he was needed. Husband, who shows no major outward signs of grief, channels his grief and Agnes' reproaches with his newest play. It bears a name similar to that of his late son. The play is Hamlet. Agnes and Bartholomew now go to the Globe Theater, to see if this Hamlet is a mockery or a tribute to a beloved child.

Some films, I find, are fine but dry. Hamnet is such a film. It is not a terrible film. Director Chloe Zhao adapted Hamnet with that novel's author, Maggie O'Farrell. One of Hamnet's greatest strengths is the acting, though from an unexpected source.

Hamnet has the best performances from children that I have seen in some time.  Jacobi Jupe is a standout as the title character. He gives Hamnet a reality, playing him as a slightly mischievous but good-hearted boy. He and Olivia Lynes as Judith are a strong match. In Hamnet, these twins attempt to pass themselves off as the other by switching clothing. The sensible Susanna attempts to persuade both her parents to call them on the obviousness of their drag act. However, Jupe and Lynes play this scene with such natural warmth that it makes Will and Agnes' fake obliviousness delightful.

Jupe will move the viewer when he gets next to a gravely ill Judith, his pleas for Death to take him effective. As he wanders through the fictious netherworld, Hamnet is both well-filmed and well-acted, making the fantasy section work. In a nice touch, Jacobi Jupe's older brother Noah plays the lead role in the Hamlet premiere.

Breathnach's Susanna is equal to Jupe and Lynes. She is sensible and also moving when she sees the children both living and dead.

The children's acting in Hamnet is excellent. The adults, though, are another matter altogether. I cannot say that they were terrible. Emily Watson in particular does well in her scene when discussing the brevity of life. Paul Mescal works well with the children as William Shakespeare, affectionate and protective. His performance as Hamlet's Ghost shows Mescal doing two performances: the Ghost and William Shakespeare. He was fine in the role, especially when he is grieving. I thought well of Joe Alwyn in his brief role of Bartholomew, Agnes' brother who shares a special bond.

Jessie Buckley too was fine as Agnes, the forest witch who enchants the aspiring writer. She has good moments, such as when she revives her seemingly dead daughter. Buckley shows an Agnes who is proud and heartbroken when needed to be. 

Here is the thing. I note that she is "heartbroken when needed to be". I did not say that she is "heartbreaking". As I kept watching Hamnet, I thought that I found the source of why I felt so distant and removed from things. It is because Hamnet is what I would call "stately".  I found everything and everyone save the children very stilted and formal in Hamnet. I figure that this is what Chao and O'Farrell were going for. They wanted something somber to keep within the tragedy of young death and the grief of those left behind. However, things are played so straight and serious that it soon makes one wonder if everyone is a somnambulist. There is such a stillness to Hamnet that it ends up becoming almost dull to sit through. 

As a side note, he is not referred to as "Shakespeare" or "William Shakespeare" until over an hour and a half into Hamnet. The film stubbornly will not use any variation of either "William" or "Shakespeare" until apparently absolutely necessary. One pretty much knows that it is William Shakespeare with little hints. He is "the glover's son". He is seen speaking and writing out lines for Romeo and Juliet fifteen minutes into Hamnet. I do not know why exactly Hamnet wanted to delay the obvious for as long as it did. It will not come as a surprise to the audience that "the glover's son" and "Husband" is indeed William Shakespeare. Why Hamnet played it as though it is meant to be one, I cannot guess at.

Hamnet does have some good qualities. The Hamlet recreations at the Globe Theater are interesting and entertaining. Max Richter's score also works well, keeping to Hamnet's somber if not overly serious manner. 

Hamnet, I think, will try some viewers' patience with its very serious, stately tone. It is not a bad film. It has good qualities in its acting and some of its technical aspects. However, this play is not the thing. 

DECISION: C+

Klute: A Review

KLUTE

I find it surprising that 1970 cinema had a lot of paranoia around it. Surveillance, hidden recordings, the threat of crime everywhere. It might be an aftereffect of the trauma that Watergate created. Klute, the crime thriller about call girls and the men who use and abuse them, is one of the best in this subgenre. Standout performances and a strong style are some of Klute's best qualities.

Pennsylvania business Tom Grunemann is missing. After six months, his friend John Klute (Donald Sutherland) agrees to investigate. Klute's best clue is an obscene letter found in Grunemann's office addressed to a Bree Daniels (Jane Fonda). Bree is a struggling model and actress in New York City, where Tom was last seen.

Bree is also a call girl who by her own admission turns anywhere from 600 to 700 tricks a year. Bree considers these encounters something of an acting job. She has to feign interest, cater to a john's preferences and fake being someone else. Bree is well-paid for her charms, but she is also in therapy for her various personal issues.

Bree is also in danger. Could Tom Grunemann be the client that had roughed up Bree two years earlier? Bree has gone through so many men that she cannot recognize Tom by his picture. She agrees, reluctantly, to help Klute in his investigation. This requires Bree to metaphorically go into her past. The Grunemann case is connected to Bree's former pimp Frank Ligourin (Roy Scheider), who was the pimp to two other call girls connected to Grunemann. One is an apparent suicide. The other, Arlyn Page (Dorothy Tristan) is an addict.

Bree and Klute begin a personal relationship. For Klute, it is closer to genuine affection. For Bree, it is more complicated, a mix of genuine affection and manipulation for self-preservation. As Klute keeps digging, he finds that Grunemann himself may have been the fall guy to a multiple murderer. Arlyn herself is another apparent suicide. Could Bree Daniels herself be the next person on this hit list? Who is behind two to three murders? Klute, having zeroed in on his suspect, does crack the case. However, will Bree emerge from "the life"?

It is interesting that while the film is titled Klute, the focus is actually not on Klute. Instead, Klute is more about Bree. Jane Fonda in her Best Actress Oscar-winning performance is excellent as Bree Daniels. Fonda has to, in a sense, play several roles. There is Bree Daniels, the actual person who faces unwitting danger. She also has to play the various versions of male fantasies to her clients. In one scene, she tells a client a fantastical story about having just returned from Cannes while performing a strip show for him. The seemingly casual, flirtatious, cooing manner mask the deep self-loathing and fear that Bree has. Bree as portrayed by Fonda is pleasant, polite and seemingly in control. At one point, she is even able to make wisecracks in an amused manner. When John Klute gives her the taped recordings of some of her encounters, she quips that dirty messages were just what she wanted.

However, she is also troubled and slightly paranoid. Some of Fonda's best scenes are surprisingly not when she is interacting with others. Instead, it is when Fonda is monologuing to the therapist. We see the troubled, complex and disappointed woman. She fears that with Klute, she is doing something that she has not done or let herself do before. She fears that she is letting herself feel. Can someone genuinely love her, Bree Daniels, instead of the version that Bree presents to her clients?

Of particular note is when Bree is forced to listen to her friend's brutal murder that the murderer recorded. In a quiet, still sequence well-directed by Alan Pakula, we focus mostly on Fonda's face as she hears her friend live out her last moments of life. Bree does not openly react. There is no big, dramatic expression. There is no open sense of shock or even terror. Instead, Bree begins to softly cry. She is crying for her friend. She is also, I think, crying for herself. She may be crying because she fears that her life is about to come to an end. However, I think she is also crying for all that could have been, and, in those moments, she thinks will never be. It is a deeply moving moment so well-directed by Pakula and well-acted by Fonda.

Donald Sutherland is more capable of matching Fonda as the lead character. He brings a quiet manner to John Klute. Sutherland never rages or has a big, dramatic moment. In fact, John Klute is a very quiet man. Even his lovemaking is soft. Klute is polite, professional, calm and controlled. That makes when he roughs up Frank Ligourin a startling moment. Even in this scene, Sutherland does not show Klute to be brutal. He makes Klute into a passionate figure, but one who is forceful only when needed. 

Klute has outstanding work from Roy Scheider in an early role as the arrogant and sleazy pimp. It is a small role, but he makes the most of his screentime. The same goes for Charles Cioffi as Frank Cable, Tom's fellow Pennsylvania businessman who may know more than he admits.

Klute has a strong visual style, full of darkness courtesy of cinematographer Gordon Willis. We see sometimes a sole candlelight dominate the otherwise dark room, perhaps a metaphor for the dark world Klute is. Michael Smalls' score feels closer to something out of a horror film than a thriller. However, like the cinematography, it adds to the sense of dread and paranoia that Klute has. Andy and Dave Lewis' Oscar-nominated screenplay holds the viewers' attention and has good, logical turns. It also allows the viewer to be ahead of the characters, building up the tension. 

To be fair, I do not understand some of the terminology in Klute. When rattling off some potential kinks that Klute might be into, Bree asks if he's "a button freak". Maybe I'm just naive, but I've no idea what that could possibly entail.

I like to think of Klute as the dark side to Butterfield 8 or even Anora. All three films had women who sold their virtue who ended up falling for a particular man. All three also won their leading ladies a Best Actress Oscar. However, the latter two did not give their call girls anything close to a happy ending. Klute, despite the darkness it lived in, ends with just a glimmer of hope. Perhaps there can be life after sex work. Excellent acting and a taut story make Klute worthy of investigating. 

DECISION: A-