Look Back in Anger: A Review

LOOK BACK IN ANGER

Angry young men don't come any angrier than working-class British young men. From Albert Finney in Saturday Night and Sunday Morning to Laurence Harvey in Room at the Top and Tom Courtney in The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner, disaffected British men were the cream of the crop for misery and moroseness. Welshman Richard Burton gets into the act with one of the original kitchen sink dramas, Look Back in Anger. Mostly well-acted, this story of the working-class man as antihero is surprisingly universal.

Jimmy Porter (Richard Burton) has a small stand which he runs with his friend Cliff Lewis (Gary Raymond) selling sweets. The legality of their stand is perpetually in question by local cop Hurst (Donald Pleasance). Jimmy yearns to move up in life, but he feels that society is against his dreams of upward mobility.

That anger extends to his upper-middle-class wife Allison (Mary Ure). Jimmy loves her, but he also harbors resentments about her posh upbringing versus his hardscrabble early years. Things come to a head when Allison's friend Helena Charles (Claire Bloom) comes to stay with the three of them, Cliff being friends with the Porters. Allison is pregnant and though unspoken, unsure what to do given Jimmy's eternal battle with the world. Helena convinces Allison to leave Jimmy and return to her parents. Despite their mutual loathing, Jimmy and Helena begin an affair.

Cliff, who also wants to move up in the world, finally has the strength to do so. For her part, Allison finds the pregnancy hard physically. Our stories come together when Helena and Jimmy see Cliff off at the railway station. Here, they encounter Allison, grief-stricken over her miscarriage.  Will Jimmy and Helena stay together, or will he find himself with his still-wife?

"You're hurt because everything has changed, and Jimmy's hurt because everything is the same", Helena tells Allison. Many a true word is spoken in that line. Look Back in Anger is a fitting title, for Jimmy is the embodiment of the angry young man. He has endless rage: at the world, at his loving wife, at his best friend, at his mistress, at the injustice of his life. 

This sense of an eternal railing against the dying of the light is brilliantly captured by Richard Burton. One can forgive that, at age 33, he was probably too old for the part. However, right from the opening scene, where Jimmy is belting it all out on his trumpet, you can see that rage within him. This is a man who wants to claw his way out onto the world yet cannot break through. 

In his tirades, his metaphorical shouting at the wind, Burton holds your attention throughout. Yet, something within him still can feel. We see this at the end, when he sees that the rage he has hurled at others does hurt those that he does love.

Mary Ure, who recreated her role of Allison from the original West End production, brings a delicacy and almost despairing manner to the role. This is a woman who truly loved deeply, though not well. She is conflicted about Jimmy, about her past, her present and future. She yearns for Jimmy but also knows that he has placed barriers that keep them apart. Gary Raymond's Cliff is pretty easygoing and pleasant, a likeable fellow who also knows deep inside that things should be better.

In his small role, Donald Pleasance was almost amusing as Hurst, the stall market inspector who delighted in what little power he had. He was strict, but he was also fair. 

Claire Bloom does wonders with the role of Helena, Allison's friend who ends up betraying her. While her performance was excellent, she is what troubles me about the film. I never once believed that Helena would end up having an affair with Jimmy. Until they were lips aflame, Helena and Jimmy were at perpetual loggerheads. As such, their affair once Allison up and left for shelter and comfort at her parents' home never seemed believable to me. 

I suppose that it had to happen to move the story forward. For myself though, I never accepted that these two would fall for each other. I found that aspect of the film implausible. 

Despite that, Look Back in Anger works very well. It is a surprise that this was Tony Richardson's film directorial debut. He had directed the original stage production, but Richardson proved himself adept to bring the stage production to film. Look Back in Anger flows well. For a film that runs 98 minutes, Look Back in Anger never feels either rushed or short. 

Look Back in Anger makes for a fine film adaptation of the stage play. I do not think that it is so sacrosanct that it could not do with a remake. I wonder though, if the same themes of alienation, frustration and painful acceptance would resonate now as they did when the play premiered. However, you do have some strong performances and an interesting story which should both entertain and move an audience. 

DECISION: B-

The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie: A Review

THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE

A little learning is a dangerous thing, the saying goes. I do not think that Alexander Pope had Miss Jean Brodie in mind when he expressed that idea. However, when it comes to the title character in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, a little teaching is most certainly a dangerous thing.

Edinburgh, 1932. The Marcia Blaine School for Girls is starting a new term, with a mix of younger girls, returning students and the established faculty. Among those faculty members is Miss Jean Brodie (Maggie Smith), who is popular with her young girls. She is unorthodox in her teaching, rebelling against the strict and formal curriculum favored by Headmistress Miss Mackay (Celia Johnson). However, Miss Brodie is tenured and has technically done nothing to cause her dismissal. 

Miss Brodie has a group of girls who are her unofficial cult. They go on picnics and the theater together, eat separate from other girls, and take pride in being Brodie Girls. They are so fond of her and see her as the embodiment of all worldly wisdom that they do not question Miss Brodie's admiration for Benito Mussolini. Jean may wax rhapsodic over Il Duce, but she yearns for Mr. Teddy Lloyd (Robert Stephens), the art teacher whom she had a fling with despite his very Catholic marriage.

Lloyd may be married, but Miss Brodie is in her prime. She soon consorts with music teacher Gordon Lowther (Gordon Jackson), who is enamored of her, comes from a wealthy family and does want to marry her. Miss Brodie, however, keeps such talk at arm's length, convinced that it is her duty to continue molding the Brodie Set into her own image. As the year goes on, one of her students starts seeing something dangerous behind the elegant facade.

Sandy (Pamela Franklin) is put off by Miss Brodie attempting to mold another girl, pretty Jenny (Diane Greyson) as Lloyd's newest lover. It is not the morality that gets to Sandy. It is how Miss Brodie does not see Sandy as good mistress material. Another girl the shy, stuttering Mary McGregor (Jane Carr) has already caught Miss Brodie and Mr. Lloyd in a compromising position. For Mary, Miss Brodie nudges her student into joining her brother in Spain while he takes arms in the Spanish Civil War.

Soon, Miss Brodie and Mr. Lowther are caught up in a scandal that for once Miss Brodie is innocent of. The machinations from and opposed to Miss Brodie continue, until there are tragic deaths and a great fall for Miss Jean Brodie.

The effectiveness of The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie comes the performances. It is a major credit to Maggie Smith in her Best Actress Oscar-winning performance that we do not end up hating Miss Jean Brody. She is arrogant, hypocritical, sometimes downright mean, and that does not count her worship for Mussolini and later on Francisco Franco. A major part of The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie involves her Franco fixation. When Smith as Brodie talks worshipfully about Mussolini when showing slides of her Italian vacation, there is a sense that her admiration for Il Duce somehow slipped into downright love. She waxes rhapsodic about how Mussolini "brought birds back to Capri", giving him an almost mystical air. Miss Brodie is dangerous in some of her ideas, but logical in others.

She goes against keeping to a strict, regimented curriculum. Here, Miss Brodie shows us the positive side of teaching. In her attempts to mold her students into loving and supporting fascism, we see the negative side. 

Smith excels as Brodie, who balances being genuinely caring for her students while leading them down sometimes dark paths. She tells her Brodie girls that a mature man can find love in a young girl, a very dangerous comment. Her assessment of both Sandy and Jenny are accurate, but Brodie cannot apply her own insight within. This is a complex, contradictory woman, one you should not like but cannot bring yourself to hate. 

The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie also has strong performances from the rest of the cast. Pamela Franklin is effective, sometimes chilling, as Sandy, the young and smart woman who does battle with her onetime heroine. Her final confrontation with Brodie is quietly and effectively directed by Ronald Neame. Sandy is no saint, becoming Lloyd's newest mistress almost to spite Miss Brodie and her assessment that she could not seduce a man. That, I think, is one of the qualities in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie: how the people are almost wholly complicated, with virtues and failings that lead them to their fates. 

Neame got his cast to deliver great performances. Celia Johnson's relatively small role as Headmistress Mackay also balances good and evil. She is passive-aggressive with Brodie, but she too cares about the wellbeing of the students. The film cleverly builds up a scene where Miss Mackay attempts to push Miss Brodie out with misinterpreted information. Earlier in the film, we saw two of the Brodie Girls write a false love letter between Brodie and Lloyd which dragged Lowther into things. When presented with the newly discovered letter, one almost cheers on Miss Brodie, who for once is innocent.

Stephens' lustful Lloyd and Jackson's lovestruck Lowther are the yin and yang for Miss Brodie, playing them off the other in her wicked sex games. "You're a frustrated spinster taking it out in idiotic causes and dangerous ideas," Lloyd berates Brodie at the dance. He's grown tired of her playing games with the men in her life and now is able to tell her off.  It is almost like a release for him from the woman who has ensnared his thoughts and body for too long.

Both Carr and Grayson do fine work in the film as the tragic Mary and pretty Jenny respectively. One character, Ann Way's appropriately named Miss Gaunt, looks downright terrifying.  

Screenwriter Muriel Spark, adapting Jay Presson Allen's play and novel, has moments of cleverness within the film. At the closing term dance, Miss Brodie is almost the literal scarlet woman, the only teacher to wear color while everyone else is cloaked in primarily grey tones. Spark also gives the characters great lines to read. Commenting on his past mistresses, Sandy tells Lloyd, "I'm not sure about God but I am sure about witches".

In some ways, Miss Jean Brodie would be admirable. She cares about teaching and about her students, particularly her cult of favorites. However, those qualities also reveal a dangerous side to Miss Jean Brodie. She uses her influence, not for good, but for herself. She takes pride in molding young women, but her aim is to mold them into clones, not individuals. Yet, despite that, it is again a credit that we do not come to despise Miss Jean Brodie. We do not love her or are sympathetic to her ideas. Rather, we see her and those around her as complex and contradictory, the way all of us are. She loves the arts, and she loves Mussolini. She is in her prime but wastes it on keeping men that love her at bay.

With a standout performance from Maggie Smith, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie is time well invested.

DECISION: B+

Looking for Mr. Goodbar: A Review (Review #1985)

 LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR

The term "slut-shaming" has only recently become commonplace. However, I think that had that term existed in the past, it would have been applied to the main character in Looking for Mr. Goodbar. Shocking and tragic, Looking for Mr. Goodbar is a strong film with an exceptional central dramatic performance.

Theresa Dunne (Diane Keaton) is the product of a good, conservative Catholic family. She also has her older sister Katherine (Tuesday Weld), whom the family sees as perfect in every way. Under those circumstances, Theresa becomes a whore. She begins an affair with her married professor Martin Engle (Alan Feinstein). She may be in love with him, but he is not in love with her. Katherine, we find, is anything but the perfect angel that Katherine and Theresa's father (Richard Kiley) think that she is. She confesses to Theresa that she had an abortion to cover up an affair. 

For her part, Theresa moves out of her parents' home and begins a dual life. By day, she is Miss Dunne, respected, respectable and devoted teacher for the deaf. By night, she hits the bars and picks up various men for trysts at her place. That is not to say that Theresa does not have some regular male relationships. There is Tony (Richard Gere), a charming but unreliable Italian American. Then there is James (William Atherton). He seems the ideal man. James is from a good Irish Catholic family, is gainfully employed as a caseworker and has progressive values while also being traditional in his courtship views.

He is also a bit controlling and obsessive with Theresa. James' problems are nothing compared to Theresa's. Her boozing and casual hookups cause her to miss class, which in turn causes the class to devolve into total chaos and angers both the administration and students. Tony comes in and out in every way possible in Theresa's life. She has to deal with her disapproving and disappointed family, her own issues and her inability or refusal to stay clear of risky situations. This culminates on New Year's Eve, where to avoid James, she finds herself in a gay bar but still manages to pick up Gary (Tom Berenger). Unfortunately for her, this will be the final hookup, leading to a shocking and tragic end. 

Looking for Mr. Goodbar may be fictional in that it is based on Judith Rossner's novel, but the film and novel are based on the life and death of Roseann Quinn, a real-life case that shocked New York City. There are so many elements in the Quinn case that elevated it to its notoriety: the dichotomy of a schoolteacher of the deaf being seen as this wanton slut, the brutality of Quinn's killing especially at the young age of 28, and the sordid details around it. Quinn was murdered in 1973, so the case would have been fresh in the minds of audiences watching Looking for Mr. Goodbar, released four years later.

Looking for Mr. Goodbar reveals another side of Diane Keaton. The same year that Looking for Mr. Goodbar premiered Keaton was charming America as the quirky title character in Annie Hall. Loveable and kooky, Keaton won Best Actress for Annie Hall. She could have easily won or at least been nominated for Looking for Mr. Goodbar, a dynamic performance that shows Diane Keaton to be as adept at drama as she is in comedy.

Keaton's performance is a standout. Her Theresa is brittle, bitter but also deeply yearning for love. I think that Theresa wants love, but she confuses it with sex. "Don't love me. Just make love," she tells one of her hookups, revealing through writer/director Richard Brooks a woman who struggles in her sexual liberation. She may be free and easy, but she is not happy. "I'm alone, not lonely," she also says, but if memory serves right this is said almost in defensive anger. Theresa still carries a lot of Catholic guilt and feelings of inadequacy which she attempts to drown in ways positive and negative.

Her work with deaf children is one way to find fulfillment, and Keaton has wonderful moments as she learns American Sign Language and interacts with the children. It also allows for LeVar Burton to appear in an early screen appearance as the brother of one of Miss Dunne's students, yet I digress. Her other fulfillment comes from what nowadays would be called her body count. In Looking for Mr. Goodbar, we see the evolution of Theresa from someone who gave herself to an unsuitable man for love to someone who thinks that she is in full control when she was not. Once her secret life literally hits the front pages, we feel for Theresa in the plight of her own creation.

Tuesday Weld received a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her turn as Katherine, the idealized older sister who was just as messy as Theresa. I think her role is relatively small, but she has some good moments in Looking for Mr. Goodbar. "They all think I pee perfume," Katherine tells her sister. In how Katherine is just as self-destructive as Theresa, Weld does more than what the material gives her. 

Looking for Mr. Goodbar has a host of great performances throughout. Richard Kiley as Mr. Dunne appears very taciturn throughout, but at the end he has a wonderful moment in his last confrontation with Theresa. If memory serves right, it is not one filled with rage but with regret, even pain, while still keeping to his values. This is an early film for LeVar Burton, but it also is an early film for both Richard Gere and Tom Berenger. Each of them did extremely well. Of these, Gere had the largest role as Tony, the occasional lover who drops in and out at whim. He is charming and dangerous, handsome and loathsome in equal measure.

An unsung figure is Atherton as James. He seems like a good catch: relatively handsome, from a good family, with a decent job and what appears to be an overall decent manner. However, we see that James can be as harsh and brutal as Theresa's other hookups. Atherton brings out James' dark side, his obsession and cruelty while also showing that kind and considerate side. I do not know if James is hypocritical or troubled, but he gives a fine performance.

One can tell the tragedy in Looking for Mr. Goodbar at the beginning and end of the film. The film starts with a photo montage of people enjoying themselves with music that blends jazz with the current disco craze, including Thelma Houston's Don't Leave Me This Way. It reflects not just the times of the film but also what Theresa probably would ask. In the midst of this musical montage (which may be a reason why for decades Looking for Mr. Goodbar was unavailable due to music rights issues), we have the haunting theme Don't Ask to Stay Until Tomorrow, sung by Marlene Shaw in a mournful, haunting manner. Artie Kane's music and Carol Connors' lyrics fit the mood beautifully. If Don't Ask to Stay Until Tomorrow was written specifically for Looking for Mr. Goodbar, one wonders how it failed to receive a Best Original Song nomination. 

The ending of Looking for Mr. Goodbar is one of the most haunting, terrifying and tragic endings I have seen. As filmed by Brooks, one feels the life ebb away as the strobe lights flash while she literally fades out of existence. It is frightening and terribly sad. One cannot help feeling for Theresa, who may have been careless with the men she hooked up with but who never deserved her horrifying and tragic end.

Looking for Mr. Goodbar can be seen as a cautionary tale. It can be seen as a tragedy. It should be seen.

DECISION: B+

Twice in a Lifetime: A Review

 

TWICE IN A LIFETIME

Divorce is a major change of life, or at least it should be. Twice in a Lifetime eschews having victims and villains in its simple tale of the end of a marriage. Complex, well-acted if a bit melodramatic, Twice in a Lifetime works thanks to the way it lets adults be adults.

Working-class steel mill worker Harry McKenzie (Gene Hackman) has just turned 50. His wife, Kate (Ellen Burstyn) encourages him to go to his favorite bar to celebrate with his friends. At the bar, he finds pretty barmaid Audrey (Ann-Margret), who gives him a birthday kiss. Harry soon begins first an emotional affair, then a physical one, with Audrey. Kate remains unaware of the liaison, though there are signs, such as when Harry wears his birthday shirt gift, which he said he would save for a special occasion, for a meeting with Audrey. 

The affair is eventually discovered, with Kate cautiously asking her husband, "Harry, who's this Audrey?". The liaison devastates everyone involved, especially Harry and Kate's two daughters. The elder, Sonny (Amy Madigan) is angry and enraged, though she may be channeling her own troubled marriage to Keith (Stephen Lang) in her constant anger at Harry. The younger daughter, Helen (Ally Sheedy) is more accepting. She opts to forego her education to marry her sweetheart Tim (Chris Parker) in part to help Kate adjust to her new life both emotionally and financially.

Harry and Audrey have moved out and moved on, working to build a life together. Kate too is finding a new lease on life, getting her ear pierced, a new hairstyle and even visiting a male revue with her daughters and female friends. Will Harry and Audrey be able to start anew? Will Harry, Kate and their daughters be able to pull themselves together for Helen's wedding?

Twice in a Lifetime works because it keeps things grounded. This is a very simple, direct story of ordinary people, flawed are relatable. Colin Welland's screenplay is never flashy and let's things build up slowly. Take when Kate confronts Harry about how he was sighted with Audrey. She does not have a big emotional moment here. In fact, it is pretty quiet, calm, which ends up making things more nerve-wracking. The film cuts away from Kate's simple question, one that we the audience already know. 

We also know from the first moment Audrey shows up that she is trouble. However, it is a credit to Welland's screenplay and Bud Yorkin's direction that Audrey is not presented as some designing woman or femme fatale. Instead, she is despite her beauty a lonely woman, widowed, who found in Harry someone who could make her happy and whom she could make happy. She is aware that they are committing adultery and hurting others in the process, but Audrey in particular is conflicted about things. "We're getting a kick out of life," Harry tells her after the affair is discovered. Audrey replies somewhat wistfully, "Is it worth it?". 

Twice in a Lifetime shows more than tells, which lends the story a greater reality. For example, there is a scene where Harry and Audrey go to a Seattle Seahawks game, as he is a massive fan. Throughout the film, we see Harry wear Seahawks gear, watching Seahawks games, even getting a beautiful Seahawks jacket at the bar's birthday party from his friend Nick (Brian Dennehy). There is even a scene where he and Audrey are looking over the Seahawks' former stadium of the Kingdome. We see Audrey enthusiastically attending the game with Harry. 

It begs the question about how much if any interest Kate had in something that Harry was passionate about. Harry lived for the Seahawks, something that Audrey shared with him. However, I asked myself, "Did Kate ever go to the Kingdome?". Did she ever care about the things her husband cared about? We see that early on, Kate encouraged Harry to celebrate his 50th birthday not with her or with the family, but at the bar with his steel mill friends. She did not even bother going with him, opting to stay cloistered at their Holden, Washington home. 

This does not justify Harry's infidelity or is meant to imply that Kate did not love Harry. However, as their son Jerry (Darrell Larson) tells his perpetually enraged sister Sunny, their father needed admiration and validation. Kate did not have to share her husband's devotion to the Seahawks. However, one senses that Kate was drifting away from Harry by not being his partner. Hank may have enjoyed the sex and the thrill of a new romance. However, I think Hank also enjoyed having someone be with him, share his life and passions instead of merely being next to him.

That is one of the qualities in Twice in a Lifetime. There are no clear-cut heroes and villains. Instead, we are presented with flawed individuals, ones who make mistakes but who also have qualities. Hank, for his part, never wanted to hurt Kate or his kids. We see this in Hackman's performance, such as when he leaves the home to move in with Audrey. We also see this when he goes to Helen to ask if he can attend her wedding. This is a beautifully played scene between Hackman and Sheedy, where the love between father and daughter come through.  

Twice in a Lifetime does something very clever, intentionally or not. Late in the film, there is a contrasting set of scenes involving two groups shopping. Audrey is set on buying Hank a beautiful watch, while Kate and Helen are looking at wedding material. Here, we see how this soon-to-be-former husband and wife see things. Hank does not want a lavish watch and would be satisfied with a less expensive watch and a cheeseburger. Kate looks on various dresses and cakes, the contrast between marriage and divorce coming in clear without it being forced. 

The film is well-acted throughout. Gene Hackman makes Hank a flawed man, who does love his daughters but also finds the thrill of newness with Audrey. Ellen Burstyn makes Kate's evolution from dependent to independent look natural. She has moments of anger, but there are moments of joy in her post-marriage life. Ann-Margret was surprisingly sympathetic as the mistress who is determined to grab a little bit of happiness. "We're not just some. We're us," she scolds Hank on when he reveals that Kate knows. 

It is interesting that out of the whole cast, it was Amy Madigan who was singled out for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination. I find it curious because while she was not terrible, I did find Sunny very grating in her perpetual anger. Sunny was always angry about something, jumping in when not asked and very unforgiving. Again, I did not think it was a terrible performance, but I did find it one-note.

Twice in a Lifetime is not a celebration of divorce. I found it rather a film about accepting situations, bad as they might be, and how life can change, with people needing to move on. Perhaps not move past something but move on.     

DECISION: B-

Angels in America: The Television Miniseries

ANGELS IN AMERICA

The theatrical epic Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes is held as one of the greatest Broadway productions in all history. I have never seen even a local or regional production, probably due to its expansive nature. For those of us who will probably never see a live production, there is the Mike Nichols television miniseries. After finishing Angels in America, I leave thoroughly puzzled over why people would want to watch both parts. 

Split into two parts, Millenium Approaches and Perestroika, with each part subdivided into chapters, the overall plot covers much territory. The story entangles two groups. On one side, there is Louis Ironson (Ben Shenkman), a Jewish man in a long-term relationship with WASP Prior Walter (Justin Kirk). Walter, scion of an old American family, has AIDS. Louis, despite his liberal leanings, cannot handle his partner's illness and leaves him. 

Weaving in and out of Louis' life is Mormon Republican attorney Joe Pitt (Patrick Wilson). He is married to drugged-out Harper (Mary-Louise Parker), who is stupefied through her Valium pill-popping haze. She occasionally goes into fantasies where Mr. Lies (Jeffrey Wright) takes her through the refrigerator to Antartica. Harper knows what Joe will not admit to perhaps even himself: Joe is gay. 

Someone else who will not admit that he is gay is Joe's mentor, notorious attorney Roy Cohn (Al Pacino). Like Prior, Cohn is dying of AIDS, but he refuses to admit that he has the disease. Eventually though, Cohn needs hospitalization but uses his connections to get his hands on massive quantities of AZT, which were not freely available in October 1981. Prior and Cohn are attended by nurse Norman Ariaga, better known as Belize (Wright in a dual role). Belize is friends with Prior and Louis, though he finds the latter difficult to intolerable.

Cohn wants Joe to take up a Washington job so that he can keep himself from being disbarred. Joe, honest and upright, refuses. He also finally surrenders to the pleasures of the flesh with Louis, with whom he has fallen in love with. Joe also admits his homosexuality to his mother, Hannah (Meryl Streep). While Hannah will not accept this announcement, she sells her home and moves to New York to look after him. 

Prior, for his part, finds himself visited by two of his ancestors (Michael Gambon and Simon Callow), who are precursors to an Angel (Emma Thompson), who declares that Prior Walter is a prophet whose great work begins.

I think that is all Part One. Part Two has Prior tell Belize his vision, which includes him having a version of sex with the angel. He also begins hunting down Louis' new partner, as is appalled that Joe Pitt is actually hot. Belize recognizes him as Roy Cohn's protege, which enrages Louis who thinks of Cohn as the Devil Incarnate. He also suspects Joe was Roy's lover, which Joe vehemently denies. Eventually, Louis cannot abide being with a closeted Mormon Republican. 

Prior, still in his prophetic role, finds an unlikely ally in Hannah. As a devout Mormon, she is not surprised about angels visiting mortals. She even manages to see The Angel come to Prior. While Hannah is terrified, she also instructs Prior on how to battle against the Angel. He forces the Angel to take him up to the ruins of Heaven, as God has abandoned it for humans, who are His playthings. Will he take up the mantle of bringing God back to Heaven?

One person who will not see Heaven is the dying Cohn. He not only is dying but has to content with the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg (Streep), who in her Nuw Yawk accent taunts her nemesis. Will Roy Cohn be defeated by someone from beyond the grave or will he get one last laugh before shuffling off this mortal coil? Will Louis, now with a mother figure in Hannah, live long enough to see the fall of the Soviet Union and begin his own great work?

Who am I to argue against what I have been told is one of the greatest works of fiction ever written? Well, I will be, for I found Angels in America boring and at times outlandishly albeit unintentionally hilarious. I figure that this adaptation is close to how the original production was. After all, Angels in America playwright Tony Kushner adapted his play for the miniseries. I cannot vouch for any changes, but again I figure this production is as close to how a stage production would play out.

If so, I would have been howling with laughter during several scenes. I probably would have started chuckling at the beginning, when we see Meryl Streep in drag playing an old rabbi. You can clearly see that it is Meryl Streep through the makeup, and I was genuinely wondering if Angels in America was a comedy, her Hebrew manner a bit exaggerated for my tastes. 

During Perestroika, I would have been on the floor rolling with laughter when Prior and Hannah see the Dark Angel come to castigate the Prophet for refusing his command. A previous scene where Prior and the Angel have something close to angelic/human sexual intercourse was already making me chuckle at the absurdity that I was watching. I thought Thompson was hamming it up to the Nth degree as the Angel, as if playing a heavenly figure gave her permission to go over-the-top. The Angel's penchant for referring to itself as "I...I...I..." did not help clamp down on my laughter. The grandiose nature of it all, coupled with the acting of Thompson, Streep and Kirk made everything hilarious, at least to me.

Part of me gets that sometimes things had to be a bit exaggerated. Gambon and Callow (whom I initially thought was Peter O'Toole) being quite exaggerated as Prior's foppish ancestors, I get. I can even roll with Thompson's Angel being grand. I cannot quite roll, however, with another of Thompson's roles as Prior's Southern nurse. I thought her Southern drawl was a bit forced.

There are essentially three good performances in Angels in America. Al Pacino, Meryl Streep, Jeffrey Wright and Mary-Louise Parker all won Emmy Awards for their performances. As I said that there were three, I would remove Parker. I understand that her whacked-out Harper was meant to be almost comatose. However, I found her too comatose to where I never believed that she could be a real person, let alone a character. Her final scene where, looking out of an airplane window, she addresses the audience was a bit off-putting to me. I found it a touch theatrical.

Wright was strong and effective as Belize, balancing a flamboyant manner while not being cartoonish. He recreated his Tony Award-winning performance, and I think he had many excellent moments. A highlight is a scene where he puts Louis in his place for lecturing him about his moralizing while justifying leaving his dying lover. In equal turns bitchy and compassionate, Belize was an interesting character worth following thanks to Wright's performance. He was not as good when playing Mr. Lies, but my sense is that he was meant to be a little absurd, so it is not a dealbreaker.

Streep was strong playing both Hannah and Ethel Rosenberg. Major credit should be given to the Emmy Award-winning makeup work, which made Streep look eerily like Rosenberg. She managed to make the two different people look as if they were being played by two different people. Hannah is firm in her faith and worldview, but she is also sensible and a genuine mother figure to Prior. I would say less so with Joe, for whom she seems to almost harbor a dislike. However, it is to Streep's credit that her performances were very strong.

If only she had not played the rabbi. She just looked goofy in that makeup and her accent. I found it a poor way to begin.

Unlike Streep and Wright, Al Pacino played only one role. His Roy Cohn is arrogant, cruel, vindictive and a liar to both others and himself. In his rages and defiance against his metaphorical and literal ghosts, Pacino held your attention. It is to where when he manages to outwit Ethel Rosenberg at his literal deathbed, I actually found him almost likeable. I think that was helped by how Ethel's smug face delighted in Cohn's death. I do not expect anyone to offer sympathy for the devil. I do hope that people, even ghosts, can be better than that. 

The other main cast members, all of whom received Emmy nominations, were not in my view good. Shenkman was at times laughable and insufferable as Louis. Yes, I suppose that Louis was meant to be laughable and insufferable. However, at times it felt as though Shenkman was attempting to do a Woody Allen impersonation. Patrick Wilson was pretty as the closeted Joe. However, he was also pretty blank, not making his internal struggle good. Kirk's Prior was acceptable but not great. He too had some of Shenkman's whining manner. However, given that his character was dying of AIDS, I can be more flexible on the matter.

I confess to both falling asleep and falling on the floor laughing at certain parts of Angels in America. I do not think that was intention. The performances from Pacino, Streep and Wright make it bearable. I would, however, not want to sit through all this again just for them. Ultimately, I think that Angels in America carried too much of its theatrical roots to make a fully formed transition to television. What works on the stage does not necessarily work on television. I know the stage play and television adaptation are both highly praised. For myself, I could not go along with the adulation Angels in America has received. 

I would not want this Angel at my table. 

2/10

Materialists: A Review

 MATERIALISTS

The singles scene is fraught with all those lonely people. Materialists attempts to make our trio tie into the overall search for love. Longer than it should be, Materialists barely manages to hang on. 

Lucy (Dakota Johnson) is a successful matchmaker for the Adore Matchmaking firm. She is now on her ninth married couple and attends the wedding. Here, she encounters Harry (Pedro Pascal), who is rich, handsome, tall and single. In the matchmaking world, he is a unicorn, one who is entranced by our young Dolly Levi. She is intrigued and interested in our elegant older man. There is a complication though.

That is her ex, John (Chris Evans). Supplementing his acting career with catering gigs, John and Lucy find that they still are interested in each other. Harry, for his part, will not be denied and woos Lucy. Soon, they become lovers, though Harry still keeps the reason for the scars on his legs to himself. They go see John perform on the stage, and John sees Lucy slipping from him.

Tragedy hits Lucy when Sophie (Zoe Winters), an Adore client who has proven difficult to match, informs Adore that Lucy's latest match assaulted her. Lucy is devastated by the news, and her professional confidence is shaken. Lucy becomes entangled in both John and Sophie's lives. She also wonders if Harry is right for her. Will Lucy find true love and matchmaking success? If she does find love, with whom will she find it with?

I was not impressed by writer/director Celine Song's first effort, Past Lives. One of my colleagues is far harsher than I am about Past Lives, routinely calling it "Cuck: The Movie". While I would not go that far, he is not far off from my views on Past Lives. That being said, Materialists is a bit more standard in terms of storytelling compared to Past Lives. It is closer to a romantic comedy but with more drama than flat-out farce.

In some ways though, Materialists does not move away from expectations. When the plot blurb is, "A young, ambitious New York matchmaker finds herself torn between the perfect match and her imperfect ex", it does not take any thinking to realize with whom said New York matchmaker will end up at the end. Just as I was reminded of The Matchmaker (which in turn was made into the musical Hello, Dolly!), while watching most of Materialists, I was reminded of all things, the Hallmark television movie Dater's Handbook. In that trifle starring the current Duchess of Sussex, the main character has to decide between a perfect man and a wacky man. If you follow the conventions of romcoms, you should know how it will all play out.

That Song opted not to go for a more humorous take on this plot is a credit to her. Materialists cannot be said to take things totally seriously. However, it is not a laugh-fest. Instead, it takes a more serious manner to the premise. Separate from the faux love triangle, we see how current dating sets up both men and women for failure.

In some ways, Materialists is critical of women and their expectations in romance. There are some montages of Lucy attempting to please the various requirements that her female clients present for their ideal match. We hear these women ask for almost impossible standards in terms of a potential date's height, age and financial status. At one point, Lucy is told by a potential client that said client is a catch. Lucy, as diplomatically as she can while expressing clear irritation, informs her that she is actually not a catch. This may be a reaction against Sophie's assault and the guilt that Lucy carries about it. However, it is nice to see someone deflate people's egos.

We get a nice bit in the end where we hear that Sophie has hit it off with a short dentist. There is a lesson here about how people need to cut off potential mates based on high expectations that they do not hold themselves to.

It is a bit surprising how women are criticized in Materialists. Harry admits the reason for his leg scars. In this well-written and acted scene, we see not just that women can be shallow about men. We also see the sometimes-extreme lengths that men will go through to attract a mate.

Materialists is probably Dakota Johnson's best performance. Yes, she is pretty. However, here she is more matter of fact, almost staccato in her manner. I think it fits the character of Lucy well. She is forthright, direct, and diplomatic. She believes herself to be doing a genuine good. Even when she fails, Lucy carries a sense of responsibility and later, guilt, over her failures. Pascal did well, although he was quieter as Harry. His last scene when he reveals the truth about himself to Lucy is a good closing moment for the character.

I cannot say much about Evans though. Outside of Captain America, I cannot think that he has had a standout acting moment. Materialists is not it. He is playing an actor, and even in the scene where we see him "act", I cannot convince myself that he is acting. I think he did the best that he could. 

I do think that Materialists is maybe longer than the film should be. Both my cousin and I nodded off at different points. It is curious that there are no male employees at Adore, though said male might not want to be an Adore-A-Girl. Moreover, few clients are male. I do not know if that suggests that men are not looking for love or would try this expensive journey. 

However, on the whole Materialists has some good moments and performances to make it barely passable. There is a bit of a payoff in the final scene with the original couple featured early on. I get what Celine Song was aiming for. I just think that she barely the target. 

DECISION: C+

The Life of Chuck: A Review

THE LIFE OF CHUCK

You watch a film, you know what it wants to say, and you can even respect what it wants to say and where it is going. However, one decision, just one, has you thinking that it could have and should have been better. Such is the case with The Life of Chuck, a film that pushes one into seeing the importance of living your life, but which stumbles just enough to not quite get a recommendation from me. 

Told in reverse order, The Life of Chuck is divided into three chapters. Chapter Three: Thanks, Chuck shows a world that is falling apart. California has sunk into the ocean. There are wars and chaos all around. The internet and automobiles are starting to fail. Schoolteacher Marty Anderson (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is doing the best that he can to keep living. He and others still living in this decaying universe, including his ex-wife, nurse Felicia (Karen Gillan) see one billboard and ad continuously pop up. It is of a nondescript, slightly smug looking fellow with a coffee cup and the message, "Charles Krantz. 39 Great Years! Thanks, Chuck!". 

Who is this Chuck, and why is he as one character called him, "the Oz of the Apocalypse"? As the world slowly comes to an end, we see Chuck in bed, dying, as his wife and son bid him a tearful farewell with, "39 great years! Thanks, Chuck!". The stars around a reunited Marty and Felicia start dying away, and the world goes dark.

Act Two: Buskers Forever has us informed by our Narrator (Nick Offerman), who did pop up in Act Three, about Charles "Chuck" Krantz (Tom Hiddleston). He is a 39-year-old accountant who has nine months left to live, though he does not know it. In Boston for a conference, he comes up Taylor Frank (The Pocket Queen), a drummer who makes a living off busking (playing music in public for donations). Chuck pauses at Taylor's drum set, begins to listen, and then begins to bust the moves. He even manages to get Janice (Annalise Basso), who was just dumped by her boyfriend, to join her in cutting a little rug to the delight of onlookers. Despite her offer to go on the road, Chuck and Janice turn down Taylor's invitation. Chuck for his part does not know why he opted to dance like no one is watching (even though everyone was).

Act One: I Contain Multitudes has the Narrator once again filling us in on the early life of Charles "Chuck" Krantz. He lost his parents and unborn sister in a car accident. Raised by his grandparents Sara (Mia Sara) and Albie (Mark Hamill), the grieving family soon starts emerging from their grief. Sara and Chuck soon dance together and watch musicals ranging from Singin' in the Rain to Cabaret on VHS. Albie, an accountant, loves Chuck but also increases his alcohol intake and forbids Chuck from going into the Victorian era cupola in their home. Chuck joins the Spinners and Twirlers dance class at school. He is a lord of the dance, even teaching everyone else the moonwalk. He endures more loss but also great joy. After both his grandparents pass on, he finally sees what is in the cupola and decides he will live out his life. Quoting from Walt Whitman's Song of Myself, he tells himself, "I am wonderful. I deserve to be wonderful. I contain multitudes". 

Courtesy of NEON

I think that writer/director Mike Flanagan's adaptation of Stephen King's short story has a good message and a good heart. The idea of how every life is important, living your life to the fullest, and how even something as apparently simple as accounting can be joyful is a most positive one. There is something good to be said about how such a film with a life-affirming message like The Life of Chuck is almost needed now. As such, why then am I giving it a mildly negative score?  

Simply put: Nick Offerman. As the Narrator, he does not appear on-screen. I recognized his voice pretty quickly, which sad to say was almost distracting from the start. What made it fall for me was in how much of it there was. Acts Two and One were pretty narration dominant. That in itself was difficult, as the narration became more and more distracting as it grew and grew. The worst part of the narration was not, however, the excessive amount of it.

Rather, it is the tone that Flanagan directed Offerman to take. At times, it was almost sarcastic in detailing Chuck's life. Voiceover can be tricky. It can be used to great effect such as in Sunset Boulevard and the original Blade Runner release. More often than not, however, voiceover narration can be a pretty lazy way of filling in plot and character development. In The Life of Chuck, we get insights into the characters through the voiceover when it could have easily come through their own actions and words. It does not help that The Narrator says something, and a character repeats it verbatim. Such things make it play like a joke. I think that The Life of Chuck is not meant to be a joke, or at least a comedy. 

Take for example when Sara, Chuck's beloved Bubbe, reveals that she is emerging from her grief. I could go with Offerman's voiceover that she is starting to cook when she had previously ordered food. However, we could have easily seen her grief in how she started dancing joyfully to Dance Hall Days on the radio and bringing in her grandson as her partner. I think The Life of Chuck began relying too much on the voiceover to where, at least for me, it grew maddening. That Act Three was not as voiceover heavy as Acts Two and One makes one wonder why Flanagan opted to be sparing in the beginning only to be more indulgent as the film went on.

Courtesy of NEON

I think that the structure of The Life of Chuck, starting with the end and moving back, was not a bad idea. It perhaps might be a little deceptive in how in Act Three, we see almost no connection between the world slowly dying and this ubiquitously strange, smiling figure. I say "a little" because in a way, Chuck is the god of this universe. The various figures that populate this apocalyptic world do appear in Chuck's life as the film goes on. Some, like Sam Yarborough (Carl Lumbly) end up playing a greater role in Chuck's life than Act Three lets on. Others, like Felicia's coworker Bri (Rahul Kohli) make essentially cameos to where you might wonder why and how they took on greater importance as he lay dying.

It is most interesting that despite seen Chuck with a wife and teen son at his death, they are not a major part of The Life of Chuck. We got a long backstory of his interest with Cat McCoy (Trinity Bliss) the best female dancer of the Spinners and Twirlers. After struggling between taking his grandfather's words about the importance of numbers and his genuine love of dance, Chuck faces his fears and with Cat free themselves to Steve Winwood's Gimme Some Lovin' at the school dance. 

You might also be startled at seeing Loki break out into a Gene Kelly routine in Act Two. One might be left speechless at seeing Tom Hiddleston burst out into a well-choreographed impromptu dance. It is interesting that Hiddleston is actually not a major part of The Life of Chuck. He appears mostly in pictures in Act Three and, given that Act One covers his childhood, he makes the briefest of appearances there, telling his wife the truth about a scar. Act Two is where he is featured the most, and most of that involves his smooth moves versus much acting. He carries the dancing off well, so there is that. 

Courtesy of NEON

The other cast members had actual moments. I did not recognize Hiddleston's fellow MCU alumni Gillan as Felicia. She was effective as the nurse who is just trying to get through the days of this ending world. 

As a side note, was the nickname that her fellow nurses received meant as some kind of comic book in-joke? In The Life of Chuck, Offerman's voiceover narration informs us that the crumbling world had many people kill themselves. As such, Nurse Felicia and her team were dubbed "the suicide squad". Make of that what you will.

Sara and Hamill were equally if not stronger as Sara and Albie, Chuck's loving but troubled grandparents. Hamill had his potential Oscar clip, a monologue where he explains that numbers are both important and just as musical as the dancing that Chuck so loves. The grief and joy that Sara shows in her performance is wonderful to see. 

I will not reveal the ending, where the mystery of what is in the cupola is revealed. I think it works within the film, even if it vaguely 2001: A Space Odyssey-like. 

I did want to like the film. I see many positives in The Life of Chuck. It is deeply unfortunate that Nick Offerman's narration: in what he said, how much he said and how he said it pushed the film down. I get the message of The Life of Chuck: each life is important, no matter how seemingly small and unimportant it appears to be. It came so close, so terribly close. 

However, it just missed the mark. I do not take away from anyone finding meaning, maybe even comfort, in The Life of Chuck. I wish though that those 39 years did not have so much narration. 

DECISION: C-