The Elephant Man: A Review

THE ELEPHANT MAN    

The story of Joseph Merrick*, better known as The Elephant Man, is strange and tragic. Perhaps that is why David Lynch would be the ideal director for this story. The Elephant Man is a deeply moving, sympathetic portrait of a man disfigured in body but magnificent in soul. 

Dr. Frederick Treves (Anthony Hopkins) visits a Victorian sideshow featuring all sorts of human exhibits. There is one, however, so shocking that the police close the whole thing down. Nevertheless, he persisted. Treves bribes Mr. Bytes (Freddie Jones), who owns this particular human exhibit to have a private showing. Dr. Treves has seen the figure dubbed by Bytes as "the Elephant Man".

This unfortunate soul, however, is not seen by the viewing audience for some time. Treves takes the Elephant Man to London Hospital. Despite the misgivings of head nurse Mrs. Mothershead (Wendy Hiller) and hospital director Mr. Carr Gomm (John Gielgud), the Elephant Man now has a home. Treves at first thinks that the patient is as mentally crippled as he is physically. In reality, we find that the patient is kind and a man of faith. 

He is also John Merrick (John Hurt). To everyone's shock, Merrick quotes the whole of the 23rd Psalm and not just what Treves has taught him. News of the Elephant Man intrigues two distinct people. The first is noted British stage actress Mrs. Kendal (Anne Bancroft), who sees the gentle, elegant soul beneath the horrifying exterior. The other is corrupt hospital porter (Michael Elphick), who sells access to Merrick without the London Hospital's knowledge.

Things look to be improving when none other than Her Royal Highness Alexandra, Princess of Wales (Helen Ryan) uses soft power to keep Merrick at London Hospital on a permanent basis. However, Bytes has managed to use the hospital porter to spirit Merrick away to Europe to return to the freak show. Will John be able to find his way back to the safety and security of London Hospital? Will the Elephant Man find peace?

David Lynch is on his second film with The Elephant Man. Yet, his directing has such confidence coupled with Lynchian eccentricities that it feels like the work of a mature filmmaker. The Elephant Man opens with a strange scene of a woman screaming in panic as elephants go by. The film holds back on revealing what John Merrick actually looks like until almost a half hour into its runtime. We get hints of his appearance, but The Elephant Man continues to keep things mysterious. This builds up both suspense and anticipation. Lynch is teasing us, almost as if he is doing what Bytes did.

The film blends a certain theatricality that matches its Victorian setting. We see this in the various moments of theater ranging from the freak shows that Merrick performs in down to the elaborate, dreamlike royal command performance that Mrs. Kendal presents. Mr. Merick is the guest of honor. 

The Elephant Man adds to that sense of vague otherworldliness with Freddie Francis' black-and-white cinematography. Francis keeps to that shadowy, dreamlike quality of the film while also still keeping to a more realistic tone when in a boardroom or the clinic. Surprisingly, the film's cinematography was not singled out for recognition among The Elephant Man's eight Academy Award nominations. 

Other aspects of The Elephant Man were curiously overlooked for recognition. The most infamous of these oversights was for its makeup work. The Academy did not have a separate Makeup category at the time. However, the lack of even an Honorary Oscar for The Elephant Man's makeup work when it had done so for both The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao and Planet of the Apes caused such an uproar that the Academy created Best Makeup (now Best Makeup and Hairstyling) the next year. The exceptional element in The Elephant Man's makeup work is that it soon becomes if not unnoticeable at least not jarring. It, in that sense, reflects how the hospital staff and caring individuals like Mrs. Kendal looked passed the appearance and into the heart.

The elements that did receive nominations were more than warranted. John Hurt, in an Oscar-nominated performance, makes John Merrick into a fully formed person. He is not a freakish creature nor an object of pity. Most people, even those who have never seen The Elephant Man, will probably know the "I AM NOT AN ANIMAL! I AM A HUMAN BEING! I AM A MAN!" line. I think, though, that a better, stronger scene is when Merrick and Kendal first meet. 

Mrs. Kendal presents Merrick a gift. It is the works of William Shakespeare. He begins reading from Romeo & Juliet. Kendal soon begins an impromptu scene with Merrick. Excellently played by Ann Bancroft, complete with British accent, this is a beautiful and moving scene. Both Bancroft and Hurt play the scene with elegance and grace. 

David Lynch with The Elephant Man made probably his least eccentric film. Perhaps The Straight Story is the only other Lynch film that would not be a bit opaque to bizarre to an average filmgoer. He treats the scenario with dignity and restraint. Lynch, who cowrote the screenplay with Eric Bergren and Christopher De Vore, had excellent counterpoints that told the viewers much about how people saw Merrick. In one scene, Mrs. Kendal reads an article about Merrick and thinks that she would like to meet him. Right after, the hospital porter reads the exact same article to his fellow bar patrons. He too expresses a desire to see Merrick, but we know that it is for sinister reasons versus Mrs. Kendal's sincere ones.

Anthony Hopkins, who was not nominated, was very quiet as Dr. Treves. His one true moment of anger, as such, has greater power. We see Dr. Treves genuine kindness and concern. The film does allow him a moment of doubt, whether he too is exploiting Merrick despite Treves' good intentions. Freddie Jones is appropriately theatrical as Merrick's brutal "owner". Their roles may be small. However, both Wendy Hiller and John Gielgud were excellent as the hospital head nurse and administrator who shift from hostile to caring.

John Morris' score, which did receive an Oscar nomination, fits into the various scenes brilliantly. It shifts from a carnival-like score to an almost lush and romantic one when needed. The film does end with music not written for the film. The use of Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings lends the final scene an added element of tragedy. It should be noted that using the Adagio for Strings came long before Oliver Stone used it as a motif for Platoon.

The Elephant Man does not sensationalize or treat the subject with ridicule or shock value. Instead, it gives Joseph Merrick's life story a grace and dignity befitting how he was in real life. It is a Gothic tale in its look and atmosphere. However, I think that The Elephant Man does show us the very human and graceful figure behind the shocking facade. The film is quiet and contemplative, with excellent performances from the cast and strong work from the crew. It is a beautiful film of the man behind the deformity.

1862-1890

*The Elephant Man changed Mr. Merrick's name to John. His real first name was Joseph.

DECISION: A+

Behind the Movement: The Television Movie

BEHIND THE MOVEMENT

Living history. It is one thing to be living history. It is another, quite another to be living as though you are consciously aware that you are living history. Behind the Movement covers a tumultuous few days between Rosa Parks' arrest for refusing to give up her seat to the one-day boycott to protest segregation. I figure that everyone involved was aware of the story's importance. Pity that such importance blocked out any sense that the people were involved were human.

Montgomery, Alabama's black community is already on edge after the murder of Emmett Till. Among those upset to quietly enraged is seamstress Rosa Parks (Meta Golding). Mrs. Parks calls her husband Raymond (Roger Guenveur Smith) and asks him to buy milk before she leaves work. She boards the city bus and will not give up her seat when told to.

Her refusal gets her arrested, where she talks to a woman in the next cell. The other woman may have been in jail for defending herself against an abusive man, but that was nothing compared to what Mrs. Parks did. The demure, proper Mrs. Parks may be the perfect test case to fight the segregation laws. NAACP lawyer E.D. Nixon (Isaiah Washington) gets the importance of the situation. So does local community activist, Professor Jo Ann Robinson (Loretta Devine). Everyone, save perhaps the Parks couple, understands how important this is.

Eventually, Mrs. Parks agrees to be the test case. Now, it is time to rapidly organize what is intended as a one-day boycott to coincide with Mrs. Parks' trial. The organizers will need all the help that they can get. That means turning to A. Philip Randolph (Al Mitchell), head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters labor union. It also means turning to the various church ministers, including a young up-and-coming preacher named Martin Luther King, Jr. (Lashaun Clay). Mr. and Mrs. Parks may have misgivings and fears, but history will not be denied. 

Behind the Movement is in the tradition of "important stories told in very serious tones" telefilms. Everyone, cast and crew, knows that this is oh so serious and oh so important. They are not exactly wrong in that idea. The Montgomery bus boycott and the slow but steady push to change is still a vital story to know. However, Behind the Movement is one where everyone is so noble, so serious, that no one is allowed to be human. Almost every statement is historic. Almost everyone presented is important. Almost every action is loaded with significance. 

This is where Behind the Movement went wrong, oh so very wrong. By behaving as though everyone and everything is of such lofty weight, Behind the Movement forgot that there were actual people involved. When, for example, Randolph and Reverend Ralph Abernathy (Keith Arthur Bolden) go to the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, everyone there realizes the importance, the significance, the epoch changing appearance of Reverend King.

King would leave a long-lasting legacy on American history. However, when Behind the Movement takes place, King was still a new figure in Montgomery. At the time of the boycott, Dr. King was a month shy of twenty-seven years old. To have Randolph, Abernathy and Nixon behave as though they were now in the presence of greatness is already bad. To suggest, as Behind the Movement does, that they were all aware of it, ironically diminishes Dr. King. It does not help that director Aric Avelino bathes Dr. King in an almost divine light when Randolph, Abernathy and Nixon are in King's office to discuss the boycott.

I do not think that Behind the Movement should have painted King as some bumbling kid. However, over and over throughout the film, everyone behaved as though they knew that the boycott was of worldwide importance right from the get-go. There is an air of profundity in Behind the Movement that does what a lot of historic pieces do. They rob the individuals of their humanity, trading in lofty images to replace flawed, even frightened people. 

People are reduced to almost walking audio-animatronic figures, always noble and aware. The closest that Behind the Movement has in terms of levity is when Alfonso Campbell (Sir Brodie) is, to use modern terms, voluntold to coordinate carpool groups. Even that was in a blink-and-you-miss-it manner. To be fair, there is a slightly comic moment when the bold Professor Robinson hoodwinks a campus security guard to let them exit the campus by claiming to be doing end-of-term grading when they had actually been using campus equipment to make flyers.

Apart from that though, Behind the Movement never failed to make everyone very grand, noble, aware of how important this particular case, this particular boycott, was to world history. Ironically, treating everything that everyone in Behind the Movement did as this lofty moment robbed us of a potentially good story. Stories that transform people into monuments tend to be bad. Stories that transform monuments into people tend to be good. Behind the Movement is squarely in the former category. 

This grand manner extends to almost all the performances. The standout for me is Loretta Devine as Professor Robinson. She is always a welcome sight, and here she brought what little humor there was. I do not think that one needs to go into the other performances. This is not to say that they were bad. They were just all the same, playing everyone as these noble figures. They differentiate only in degrees of seriousness. 

Meta Golding does her best to make Rosa Parks into a less secure figure, but she still carries such a sense of history that it diminishes Mrs. Parks. Roger Guenveur Smith seems wasted as the eternally supportive Raymond, though to be fair he looks enough like Harry Belafonte that I think Smith should play him in a Belafonte biopic. 

Perhaps the worst of the "EVERYTHING I DO AND SAY IS IMPORTANT TO HISTORY" performance was that of Isaiah Washington as E.D. Nixon. Washington's Nixon was so loaded with the weight of history one half-expected him to literally walk on water. 

I think that much of the blame for Behind the Movement being so self-serious is on Katrina O'Gilvie's screenplay. The telefilm is loaded with some almost cringe bits of dialogue. Having a scene where a woman who survived abuse by attacking her attacker comments that Rosa Parks was the brave one is already a curious parallel to draw. Having Parks comment, "I just figure some things are worth standing up for" makes it almost cross into the pompous. 

Behind the Movement might be a good way to start learning about Rosa Parks' story. It is not a good way, though, to find the woman behind the movement.

1913-2005

4/10

Marty Supreme: A Review (Review #2105)

MARTY SUPREME 

Ambition can be a catalyst for growth or a hindrance to maturity. Marty Supreme, while long, is a thrilling, fast-paced and wild film. With simply brilliant performances from its cast, Marty Supreme dominates the screen and charms the viewer.

New York City, 1952. Marty Mauser (Timothee Chalamet) has one goal, one vision, one dream. None of them involve working in his uncle's shoe store. They are to be the world table-tennis champion. The British Open is taking place in London, and Marty is dead set on getting there come hell or high water. He will do anything and everything to pursue his dream, even taking the money his uncle promised him by force.

In London, Marty is driven to defeat everyone and everything around him. That goal leads him to check out of the cheap lodgings the players get and into the Ritz. It involves sleeping with former movie star Kay Stone (Gwyneth Paltrow), who is married to pen magnet Milton Rockwell (Kevin O'Leary). It involves insulting Rockwell to his face. Marty is good but ultimately is defeated by Japanese player Koto Endo (Koto Kawaguchi). Marty is unaware that Endo is deaf, a result of the war, and thus cannot be distracted.

Back in NYC, Marty finds himself in a continuing series of strange circumstances, outlandish disasters and near-disasters. Most of the chaos within and without Marty's life are of Marty's own making. He tours the world as part of a halftime show for the Harlem Globetrotters. Marty is not thrilled about being essentially a performing monkey, but money is money. He firmly rejects a chance at a rematch with Endo if it means deliberately throwing games to him as part of Rockwell's promotional tour. 

Marty is desperate to get to Tokyo for that year's Table Tennis Open. However, everything from his affair with friend Rachel Mizler (Odessa A'Zion) to a gangster's dog continue to block his path to greatness. Hustling and getting hustled, Marty continues to fall and rise repeatedly. Eventually, perhaps inevitably, Marty makes it to Tokyo, even if he has to endure great humiliation to do so. 

Still, Marty's travails do not cease. Rockwell, who knows of his liaison with Kay, will not let Marty off the hook so easily. Marty may not be able to compete in the Open, but he still gets his rematch with Endo. Will Marty prove himself supreme? Will he also find that winning means something other than triumphing over all his foes?

Logic should tell us that Marty Mauser is a pretty reprehensive person. He's arrogant. He's manipulative. He's selfish and self-centered. Yet, he is despite all that, a positive figure. He has blinding ambition. He is driven. He is focused. He has his own sense of integrity. Perhaps, now in retrospect, I can look on Marty Mauser as a young and foolish man, who believes that the world is his for the taking to end up realizing it is what we give that matters. 

Many times, people use the term "career-making" or "career-defining" to describe a particular performance. Timothee Chalamet has had many such "career-making/defining" performances in his still young life (he turned 30 last month). Marty Supreme will have even the firmest, fiercest Chalamet haters concede that he is both one of the finest actors of his generation and even a star. He makes Marty into this nuclear explosion of a character. Marty is brash, quick-witted, charming, dangerous and surprisingly loveable. It is not often that someone can make a character rattle off an Auschwitz joke and still have you on his side.

Don't worry, Marty is Jewish.

In Chalamet's performance, we see Marty as not some cocky kid. We see, instead, a driven young man, aware of his talents and strength, who knows his worth. Dear me, he might be the kind of man that Ayn Rand adored: someone who put himself first because he knows his own worth, even if no one else does. Yet, I digress.

Timothee Chalamet gives such a driven, crazed, wild and ultimately moving performance that, regardless of recognition, I think it will stand among the greats. He dominates Marty Supreme with a ferociousness that leaves one almost breathless.

That is not to say that Marty Supreme is a one-man show. Everyone in the cast, even the smallest of roles, brims with energy. Kevin O'Leary is spot-on as Milton Rockwell, Marty's evil businessman patron and antagonist. I was unaware that he was known primarily as one of the hosts on Shark Tank (never having seen the show). He gives an excellent performance of arrogance and malevolence. I think many people are making far too much of one of his final lines, when he tells Marty that he was born in 1601 and was a vampire. 

I did not take Rockwell's comments literally. I think he was so enraged that he was being metaphorical. Still, it is a credit both to O'Leary's performance and director/cowriter Josh Safdie (writing with Ronald Bronstein) that Marty Supreme could make people think that it is flirting with the supernatural. 

Marty Supreme is filled with a cacophony of small roles that still leave an impact. Apart from Chalamet and O'Leary, the biggest role probably is that of Odessa A'zion as Rachel, the closest figure that Marty can have any genuine emotional sentiment for. She does excellent work as a woman who has genuine feelings for Marty but who can also be deceptive to get him. 

Gwyneth Paltrow makes Kay into a wise and aware woman, but one still driven by her own self-doubts. She runs through a whole set of emotions. She can acknowledge that she knows Marty's tricks. She can be appropriately dramatic when attempting a comeback with a vaguely A Streetcar Named Desire show. She can show the devastation at the reviews. Other figures who pop up sporadically make for fun viewing. Penn Gillette is almost unrecognizable as the dog-holding farmer. Emery Cohen, so wonderful in Brooklyn, is likewise almost unrecognizable as Rachel's cuckold husband. Fran Drescher tones down her still-recognizable accent as Marty's worried and frustrated mother. 

The movie has a wonderful score that fits the era. It does use 1980's music, but the anachronisms do not work against it. The final scene with Alphaville's Forever Young will be a very moving moment. It is completely inaccurate in terms of history. However, the song still fits the scene, coupled with Chalamet's performance.  

Marty Supreme is, like the main character, a fast-paced, driven film, taking you for a ride but making you love it.  

DECISION: A-

Moonstruck: A Review

MOONSTRUCK

The words "lunacy" and "lunatic" stem from the Latin word for "moon" (luna). "Luna" is still the word for "moon" in Spanish and Italian. Being in love is a bit like being insane, I suppose. The lunacy of love is delightfully captured in Moonstruck, a charming romantic comedy with standout performances all around.

Italian American widow Loretta Castorini Clark (Cher) is a mistress of bookkeeping but at 37 figures that she will never love nor marry again. The Castorinis are a superstitious lot, convinced that good or bad luck follows them. Loretta agrees to marry her nebbish, bumbling boyfriend Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello). She is not in love with Johnny but thinks that this is for the best.

Loretta's engagement is not welcome news to her father Cosmo (Vincent Gardenia). He balks at her getting married again and especially at paying for the wedding, tradition or no tradition. Loretta's mother Rose (Olympia Dukakis) is not enthusiastic either but quietly accepting. Johnny has left for Palermo to see his dying mother and has asked Loretta to invite his estranged brother, Ronny. Her initial efforts are rebuffed, but determined to see it through, she goes to Ronny's bakery. 

Despite her common sense, Loretta does more than mend fences with Ronny (Nicolas Cage). She goes to bed with him. He now declares his love for, to which she responds by slapping him and yelling, "SNAP OUT OF IT!". Cosmo and Rose, unaware of any of this, continue believing that Loretta and Johnny will be married a month from now. Rose's brother Raymond Cappomaggi (Louis Gus) and sister-in-law Rita (Julie Bosavvo) recall when Raymond claims to have seen a giant Moon when Cosmo was courting Rose. To almost everyone's surprise, "Cosmo's Moon" has returned.

Cosmo is the only one not to see it. More than likely, it is because he has a mistress, Mona (Anita Gillette). Loretta agrees to go with Ronny to the Metropolitan Opera to see La Boheme, his other great passion, on condition that he drop any romantic ideas and go to her upcoming wedding. The romantic entanglements continue when both Loretta & Ronny and Cosmo & Mona end up at the Met. Rose, meanwhile, has dinner alone until she invites jilted professor Perry (John Mahoney) to join her. Rose suspects that Cosmo is cheating on her, unaware that Loretta has inadvertently confirmed her mother's suspicions. Things come to a head when Johnny unexpectedly returns, his mother having made a "miraculous" recovery. How will these tangled romances end? 

Moonstruck is a love letter to love in all its crazy, charming and confusing forms. Screenwriter John Patrick Shanley in his Oscar-winning screenplay builds a logic to the increasingly eccentric situations. He builds up the story slowly, allowing for both the characters and their predicaments to flow. Moonstruck does a masterful job in showing how the various characters evolve and how they see the world. 

For example, early on we see Loretta appear to dismiss someone ordering roses, commenting on how so much money is spent on something that will be tossed into the trash. However, when the florist that she is working the books for presents her with a single rose, we see Loretta genuinely charmed and moved by the gesture. This reveals that despite the "bad luck" that got her husband killed by a bus, Loretta at heart still believes in love. 

We see the characters in all their delightful eccentricity throughout Moonstruck. It is when Cosmo hoodwinks a couple into spending more money on plumbing. We see it when Rose is awakened to be told Loretta's news. "Who's dead?", Rose asks in a quizzical but deadpan manner. It is in their insistence that some other force controls both the positive and negative events in their lives.

One thing that I do not think people have focused on is a key moment. After Raymond tells the story of Cosmo and his Moon, we see all the characters react when a massive moon appears to them. Loretta looks on this "love moon" with wistfulness, soon joined by Ronny who asks her to come back to bed. Raymond gets frisky with Rita, who delights in the renewed attention. Cosmo's father or Pop (Feodor Chaliapin) encourages his dogs to howl with delight. Rose looks at it with longing and sadness, underscoring how Cosmo has strayed. It is telling that Cosmo, passed out drunk, is the only one not to see it. I think it suggests that Cosmo is the only one not in love anymore. He is blind to true love, something that everyone else is not.

Moonstruck has excellent performances from the entire cast. Both Cher and Olympia Dukakis won Oscars for their performances, with Gardenia receiving a Supporting Actor nomination. Cher has a strong manner to her Loretta Castorini. Blunt, sometimes exasperated, Loretta is also a woman emerging into her own. She is resigned to things, to a settled life. Once she encounters the wild Ronny, it is as if Loretta has allowed herself to come out and embrace life. 

Cher has wonderful comedic timing with her castmates. She can bemoan her father's obstinacy and Ronny's brutish and self-pitying manner. She can also show compassion and tenderness. Her disbelief that Cosmo could be stepping out on Rose, coupled with her shock and disappointment when she discovered Cosmo's infidelity, showcases Cher's acting strengths. While most people remember her "SNAP OUT OF IT!" reaction, there are other moments that showcase Cher's strong performance. A quiet moment is when she returns home after the opera. Just by kicking a can down the street, we see Loretta contemplating all that she has gone through and wondering if her luck has finally turned.

Dukakis is wise and loving as Rose, the Italian mother who knows more than she lets on. Her continued search to find why men chase women is comic gold. However, we also see the genuine love and pain she feels about Cosmo. She loves him and knows that love hurts. Beneath Rose's wisdom, there is warmth, compassion and understanding. Dukakis balances humor and heart. 

As a side note, it is curious that despite neither of them being of Italian heritage, Cher and Dukakis are so perfect in their roles as these Italian Americans.

The actual Italian Americans in Moonstruck also do wonderful work. Danny Aiello is hilarious as Johnny, the weak, bumbling and befuddled beau. I would use nebbish, a good Yiddish term, to describe Johnny. Vincent Gardenia is wonderful as Cosmo, the man who lost love and ultimately found it again. We see that, at heart, he does love his wife and daughter, even if he has to struggle with his fear of death to show that love. 

Nicolas Cage makes Ronny's crazed manner almost rational. He is a bit cartoonish, but I think that is how Ronny is. A great bit of directing, either from Cage or director Norman Jewison, is when Ronny scratches his face while Loretta calls him "a wolf". It is a sly nod to Loretta's perception and Ronny's true nature. 

It would be unfair to not mention John Mahoney, the only non-Italian character in Moonstruck. His role is small, but it is important. It serves as a counterpoint to the various romantic entanglements of the Castorinis. While they pursue love, the non-Italian Perry pursues affirmation. Yet, in his own way, Perry also has a little bit of moon magic. While reflecting on his life with Rose, he expresses a belief that love is like "moonlight in a martini". 

Moonstruck is a charming and logical story, even if its logic is broad. That, I suppose, is how love is: charming and with its own curious logic. Love has never been so amusing and delightful as it is when one is Moonstruck.

DECISION: A+

Cabrini: A Review (Review #2103)

CABRINI

Mother Cabrini is the first American saint in the Roman Catholic Church though not the first American-born saint. That would be Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton. Cabrini is an ambitious biopic on this Italian woman who came to the United States to build "an empire of hope". I can laud Cabrini for its noble intentions. I can fault Cabrini for its excessive length. 

We are informed that between 1889 and 1910 there were over two million Italians that had immigrated to America. They were seen as "brown vermin" by the nativist Americans, living in squalor and sewers of New York City. Mother Francesca Cabrini (Cristiana Dell'Anna) has run a successful orphanage in Codogno, Italy. She, however, has a firm faith that her mission must be to create orphanages in China. The Vatican has repeatedly rejected her requests, but nevertheless, she persisted. Finally, His Holiness Pope Leo XIII (Giancarlo Giannini) grants it on condition that she not turn to the East but to the West and go to New York.

Here, Mother Cabrini and her sisters face ferocious opposition. The WASP Anglos detest these people of "Latin persuasion", especially Mayor Gould (John Lithgow). The Archbishop of New York, Archbishop Corrigan (David Morse) is no more helpful albeit not as racist as Gould and City Hall. He cannot stop them, but he forbids them from soliciting funds from Americans. 

The Italian community is not welcoming either, seeing the sisters as useless and an impediment to their criminal enterprises. Still, slowly, Mother Cabrini pushes to get more for her charitable work. Despite her ill health, she wanders into sewers looking for lost children. Eventually, she finds help from unlikely sources. There is the reformed prostitute Vittoria (Romana Maggiora Vergano). There is sympathetic doctor Murphy (Patch Darragh). There are the street urchins Enzo (Liam Campora) and Paolo (Federico Ielapi), whom we met at the beginning when he could find no one to help his dying mother. 

Mother's first efforts to have an orphanage on the Upper West Side is met with overtly racist opposition. Eventually, she and Archbishop Corrigan agree on a Jesuit-owned property on the Hudson River. Mother Cabrini's ambitions grow for a proper hospital. This is met with more opposition and even a forced return to Italy. However, by now Mother has become a skilled political operative. Will she force Mayor Gould's hand? Will New York Times reporter Theodore Calloway (Jeremy Bobb) be a help to Mother's mission? Will Mother Cabrini triumph or will her ill health overtake her?

It is interesting that Cabrini draws attention to a forgotten fact. Today, Italian Americans from Joe DiMaggio and Lee Iacocca to Martin Scorsese and Antonin Scalia are celebrated in U.S. history. It was less than a century ago, however, that Italians coming to America were seen as the "brown people" accused of invading the United States. I do not know if any President accused Italian immigrants of bringing drugs, bringing crime and being rapists (with some assumed to being good people). Interestingly enough, the celebration of Columbus Day was inspired in part by anti-Italian sentiment, to show Italian Americans as loyal citizens. The more things change, I suppose, but I digress. 

Cabrini, in some respects, I think tries to tie in contemporary issues of anti-Latino sentiments to anti-Italian sentiments from the past. When a banker tells Mother that he will not help people of "the Latin persuasion", it is almost impossible to not draw a direct parallel between an Italian then and say, a Mexican now. Near the end of Cabrini, Mother tells Gould that there will be an Italian in his office, not as a cleaner but as his successor. Was she predicting the rise of New York City Mayor Fiorello La Guardia? Again, whether or not it was Cabrini's attempt in drawing a parallel between Italians then and Hispanics now is conjecture. I can say only for myself that such a suggestion appeared to me.

Cabrini has a strong performance from Dell'Anna as our strong Mother. Dell'Anna makes Mother into someone unafraid to stand up to the most powerful men, sure of her purpose. "Begin the mission and the means will come", Cabrini tells the Pope. She makes Cabrini a woman who will not be denied. Dell'Anna also shows Mother to be someone driven due to a sense of impending death. She is aware that time is very finite, so she wants to do all that she can before God calls her home.

Cabrini has a strong supporting cast. While Lithgow and Morse are spaced throughout the film, they both do strong work as the villainous Mayor and not-so-villainous Archbishop. Morse, late in the film, has a conversation with Cabrini revealing that he is not as hostile as she thinks. Vergano impresses as Vittoria, the hooker who finds the strength to leave the life and help Mother (even if it involved violence). Campora and Ielapi are wonderful as Enzo and Paolo, the street urchins who also shift from hostile to helpers. 

Given his role, I think Giancarlo Giannini filmed all his scenes in one day, but he did what was required. 

That, I think, is probably Cabrini's biggest problem. The film runs a punishing two-and-a-half hours long. It soon becomes a bit of a slog, slowly drowning in its own sense of importance. Cabrini's screenplay by Rod Barr feels so heavy in its seriousness. I can remember only one time when Cabrini laughed (when she and Vittoria, I believe, found water to sustain the orphanage). Apart from that, Cabrini and Mother Cabrini are so serious that one wonders if anyone in this world ever smiled. For much of the film, the characters come across as exactly that: characters. They do not come across as people.

Director Alejandro Monteverde also made a very unfortunate choice in filming so much of Cabrini in this sepia tone. It reminded me of all things, The Simpsons. The eternally sepia world of Cabrini brought to mind when in a flashback, Carl commented that he did not think the Depression was so great and Lenny replied that he found the sepia pretty nice.   

During the film's runtime, my mind began wandering. I thought that perhaps Cabrini would have benefitted from having our story told through Vittoria or Enzo & Paolo's eyes. At the very least, Cabrini would have done better to either be shorter or been a multi-episode miniseries. Right now, the somber and sepia tones that Cabrini has makes it a bit of an endurance test.

The work that Mother Cabrini did is to be commended and praised. Cabrini is a respectable, respectful but somber and self-serious telling of her life. One can respect Mother Cabrini's life and achievements while wondering why her biopic is so dry.

1850-1917

DECISION: C+

With Love, Meghan Episode Sixteen: A High Tide Raises All Boats

WITH LOVE, MEGHAN: A HIGH TIDE RAISES ALL BOATS

Original Airdate: August 26, 2025

Special Guest: Jose Andres

Mentions of "Joy": 0

Mentions of Flower Sprinkles: No

Passive-Aggressive Moments: 0

Gushing Praise for Markle: "You have a great accent".

As we close out Season Two or Season One Part Two of With Love, Meghan, one thing stays with me about the season (and probably the series) finale A High Tide Raises All Boats.

Santa Barbara Sea Urchin. 

What is it about Santa Barbara Sea Urchin that stays with me? I think it is that anyone thinks that Santa Barbara Sea Urchin is the perfect dinner treat for a very special occasion. I think it is the concept of Santa Barbara Sea Urchin being a realistic dish for people that is one of A High Tide Raises All Boats' many oddities. 

Santa Barbara Sea Urchin will be one of the myriads of dishes that Her Royal Highness Meghan, Duchess of Sussex will present to the With Love, Meghan crew as we close out the series. This will be a "thank you" soiree for all the work that the With Love, Meghan crew has done over these past two seasons.

In other words, a wrap party. 

Despite having been a working actress for over twenty years, Meghan Markle cannot bring herself to call this get-together a wrap party. In any case, Markle has to get so many things together. First stop is the Jonata Winery, where Jonata /Hilt Estate winemaker Matt Dees will present the Duchess with a variety of wines. They will also wax rhapsodic about the winemaking process, which is nature running its course.

After that, Meghan finally greets galloping gourmet Jose Andres. Andres goes around the world, bringing food and presumably "joy" through his World Central Kitchen. He also brings gifts for the Duchess Hostess with the Mostess: a massive chunk of blue cheese and Iberian ham. 

There will be lobster, paella and uni served for the crew. The uni is the edible part of the sea urchin. And this is where the Santa Barbara Sea Urchin comes in.

Meghan has gone down to Santa Barbara to get the sea urchin from commercial fisherwoman Stephanie Muty. Muty shows Meghan how she harvests the urchin. Both Meghan and Andres (who knows Stephanie) are bullish on how Muty is into sustainable fishing. Muty also shows Markle how to open up the sea urchin and pull out the Aristotle's lantern. This process does make Markle a touch squeamish. 

She is more squeamish when Andres refers to the urchin's "gonads". Mrs. Saxe-Coburg & Gotha pretty much loses it when Andres cuts open the live lobsters and chops its head off. Still there is food to prepare for the crew. Everyone invited, including Stephanie Muty, loves the food and the avuncular Andres. With that, A High Tide Rises All Boats celebrates everyone and everything With Love, Meghan related, presumably joyfully.

A High Tide Raises All Boats ends with the song that has the refrain "Don't let it be the last time". I find this to be a very strange way to end With Love, Meghan's second (or first) season. Is Her Royal Highness making a subconscious acknowledgment that this foray into lifestyle influencing is coming to a close? As with Spice Up Your Life, my mind wandered into how With Love, Meghan could have been better had Mrs. Sussex opted to go a different route. Having her as our semi-royal guide through various California wineries might have, dare I say, been interesting. 

Then again, had that been the case, it would have put the focus on both the wineries and winemakers like Matt Dees. That would diminish Markle, which would be impossible for Mrs. Sussex. People come to see and listen to her, not to her guests. At least in Markle's mind. 

Dees comes across as someone who is knowledgeable, enthusiastic and actually pleasant. None of those attributes can be ascribed to Markle. In perhaps the worst comparison I can make, Meghan Markle reminds me of Joseph Stalin. After Lenin's death, Soviet propaganda was careful to not feature Lenin alongside films glorifying Uncle Joe. "You cannot have two Suns in the sky", I believe Soviet filmmakers were told. Granted, this might be apocryphal. However, the maxim of not having two suns in the sky fits the titled lady of With Love, Meghan.

Markle can, on occasion, let someone else take charge. Many times, on With Love, Meghan, the Duchess will have professionals run things. She more often than not protests on how this will be her first time doing XYZ. I find it rather schizophrenic: how she can be learning something for the first time while also being a regal entertaining doyenne. 

This is my first encounter with Jose Andres, though I have heard of him. He comes across as a cooking Robin Williams, with a rapid-fire delivery and manic manner. It is curious that unlike past chefs on With Love, Meghan, Andres seemed more willing to adore his "lady". This is more than Spanish courtliness. When Meghan was repeating what she had learned about sea urchins, Andres behaved as though Markle was relating fascinating and new information to him. 

"Oh my god. You took a class in biology, in marine biology", Andres gushes to the Duchess. Sheepishly, Meghan replies, "I just talked to Stephanie". Andres was exceedingly complimentary to Markle. Past chefs featured on With Love, Meghan have been pleasant to cooly tolerant of Markle. Andres, however, was quite delighted to be with her and even learn from her. I doubt anyone ranging from Ramon Velazquez to Clare Smyth would have called her his "young Jedi".  

As a side note, while I'm not well-versed in Star Wars lore, shouldn't Markle have been his "young padawan"? Yet, I digress.

Back to the Santa Barbara Sea Urchin. I go back to a question that I had long ago. Who exactly is the target audience for With Love, Meghan? Who is going to go and buy Santa Barbara Sea Urchin? Who is going to actually prepare such an esoteric dish for a get-together? Granted, I do not care for seafood. 

I also have never heard of a "uni" except as part of a Golden Girls joke involving Sophia Petrillo's vajayjay. Still, is serving uni and whatever concoctions Andres literally whipped up something that the average consumer would serve?

After seeing A High Tide Raises All Boats, I was left thoroughly unimpressed with Jose Andres. He seems very frenetic and exuberant. He is also unsentimental about cutting up live lobsters. A big personality, however, did not translate as someone that I would want to learn to cook from. 

One aspect of A High Tide Raises All Boats did puzzle me. The Duchess of Sussex presents this as a "thank you" party for the With Love, Meghan production crew. Had she called it a "wrap party", which is what it was, I do not think viewers would have batted an eye. Instead, I think that by presenting it as a "thank you" party, it suggested generosity and "joy" rather than the end of her production. 

I will not attempt to read the minds of the With Love, Meghan crew. I trust that they enjoyed their time working with the Duchess of Sussex and did their best to bring about a good program. They cannot be faulted for With Love, Meghan being terribly boring and uninformative about entertaining. At least we learned that the mysterious "Aitch", also known as "my husband", does not like lobster. 

Perhaps that is why Aitch did not appear in A High Tide Raises All Boats. There was nothing that Prince Harry could eat. 

Not even Meghan Markle's uni. 

Could he know the whereabouts of Hawthorn Markle? 

1/10

Next Episode: Holiday Celebration

The Testament of Ann Lee: A Review (Review #2102)

THE TESTAMENT OF ANN LEE 

The efforts of humans to be one with the divine has existed from the beginning of time itself. From the Bacchanalias of ancient Greece and Rome to today's Pentecostal snake-handling, the blending of the spiritual and orgasmic has never been fully extinguished from the human experience. Among the various faith traditions that has blended physical and religious ecstasy is that of the United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing, better known as the Shakers. The Testament of Ann Lee is a musical biographical film of the foundress of the American Shakers. Better known as Mother Ann, The Testament of Ann Lee is a well-mounted production, with strong performances, an engaging visual style and wonderful music. 

Told in voiceover by Mother Ann's devoted follower Mary Partington (Thomasin McKenzie), we learn of the life of Ann Lee (Amanda Seyfried). She is, from childhood, drawn to the spiritual, though the traditional Church of England is not fulfilling. Closer to her heart is that of the Quaker movement. As she grows older, she turns away from her family's traditional work of cotton to a cook in an infirmary. 

Ann is soon welcomed into the Shaking Quakers movement. Here, it is a blending of the mystical and carnal, the worshippers finding ecstasy in their adoration. Reluctantly, Ann finds marriage to Abraham Standerin (Christopher Abbott) and loss of all four of her children before any turn one year old. After an imprisonment for blasphemy, Ann has visions of the origin of the Fall of Man. It is fornication that separates us from God. As such, the now-Mother Ann renounces such pleasures. She also is found to be the female form of Christ.

Mother Ann now finds that America will be where she and her eight followers must go. Accompanying her are Abraham, Mary, Ann's niece Nancy (Viola Prettejohn) and Ann's devoted brother, William (Lewis Pullman). They have all renounced sex, including William, who must abandon his friend Jacob. Now in pre-Revolutionary America, Abraham is the one to abandon Ann, his sexual desires too strong to stay in the faith. Nevertheless, she persisted. Nancy too has abandoned Shakerism to indulge in sex and marriage with Richard Hocknell (Jamie Bogyo), son of the mission's financier John (David Cale). John finds the remote area where they will start their new utopian community of Niskayuna. From here, the Shakers draw followers thanks to Mother Ann's guidance and William's endless wandering evangelism. How will they respond to the American Revolution as pacificists? Will Shakers survive past the deaths of both William and Mother Ann, the latter dying at 48?

I confess to being drawn to much of Shakerism ever since I learned of it through a Ken Burns documentary. The overall philosophy of "hands to work, hearts to God" is appealing to me. The thrift, the gender and racial equality that they practiced also draws me in. They lived simply and loved efficiency. Granted, other elements kept me from pursuing them. The communicating with the dead and celibacy are hindrances to many, I imagine. On the whole though, I find much in Shakerism that is a net positive, yet I digress. 

The Testament of Ann Lee is curiously not in keeping with Shakerism in terms of being visually splendid. This is seen in the elaborate visions and dancing in the film. Celia Rowlson-Hall choreographed the ecstatic dancing/worship based on traditional Shaker ritual. She crafted excellent work, blending the spiritual and the carnal in these exuberant to almost erotic movements. The Shaker worship is one of passion, as if channeling the pleasures of the flesh through intense worship. However, The Testament of Ann Lee does not exoticize or ridicule the Shaker's spiritual passion. It may slightly eroticize it, but not to a great degree.

Shakers were not only known for their exuberant dancing but for their music. The Testament of Ann Lee has a wonderful musical score from Daniel Blumberg. He uses a mix of traditional Shaker hymns with some of his own works to craft a reverential and passionate series of songs. It is to Blumberg's credit that I would not be able to tell which worship songs are original Shaker hymns and which are original to Blumberg. Of particular note is the closing song, Clothed by the Sun, which is moving and effective. It captures the mood of Shaker hymns, one of reverence and almost hope. 

The score managed to even throw in a little rock in I Love Mother, where we hear some shredding along the singing. This is not far off from what Shakers would have done. Unlike the Amish, Shakers embraced technology. As such, they might have included electric guitars in worship. 

As a side note, I think that viewers may be put off or even chuckle at the number of times people seem to almost burst into song. The Testament of Ann Lee is not a traditional musical in that the songs are not sung to further the plot. However, I was not bothered by the number of times people begin singing because the music is so good. It is unfortunate that neither Clothed by the Sun nor the score was shortlisted for Oscar consideration. I think the work is more than worthy of recognition. 

Director Mona Fastvold drew great performances from her cast. Amanda Seyfried, I think, is working on all cylinders as this devout, driven woman. Seyfried blends spiritual strength and passion with a gentle stillness. Seyfried plays Mother Ann as certain of her mission, but she never plays her as a dictator or a tyrant. Instead, she seems to live out a gentle but sure faith. She never allows herself to be worshipped despite claiming to be the literal Second Coming of Christ. 

I spent much of the film wondering who William Lee was. It was not until the credits that I saw that it was Lewis Pullman, who is slowly coming out of his father Bill's shadow. Pullman plays William as a man who has full faith in both Mother Ann and the Shaker movement. It is his quiet manner that draws you to William. It is also to the film's credit that William's homosexuality is not sensationalized or even commented on. There is a brief moment where, after Mother Ann declared that her followers must be celibate, we see William wake up nude with another nude man. Him cutting his hair as he calmly bids farewell to Jacob, I think should make clear that William is gay. However, it is treated so quietly that one soon forgets his sexuality.

Thomasin McKenzie has always shown a great promise since Leave No Trace. She does well as Mother Ann's devoted follower and friend. Where I struggled is how she is the narrator. I have softened on the subject of voiceovers. However, I think there was too much of it in The Testament of Ann Lee. This is not McKenzie's fault. However, this is a weakness in Mona Fastvolt and Brady Corbet's screenplay. 

The film also has lush cinematography, full of grand visuals. Mother Ann's visions, while few in the film, are quite visually arresting. Again, I find it amusing that The Testament of Ann Lee is visually grand given how Shakers were much opposed to ornamentation in their art and architecture. The editing is also very strong. On their voyage to America, the Shakers sing All is Summer on the deck, first to the derision and then to the cool tolerance of the non-Shakers aboard. The transitions of weather as they continue their hymn works well. 

Given my knowledge of Shaker history, The Testament of Ann Lee is strongly historically accurate. As such, there is nothing "woke" about having a black Shaker in one of their communities. There is a brief moment when, on arriving in New York, Mother Ann berates a slave auction. The Shakers were open about their opposition to slavery and the equality of all races. They also were pacificists, so they did not fight for or against the Americans during the Revolution. In fact, their pacificism was so strong that during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln gave the Shakers exemption from being drafted. They, along with Quakers, became the first conscientious objectors.  

During the closing credits, we learn bits of Shaker history. At their peak in the 1840's, there were 6,000 believers. As of July 25, 2005, the number had dwindled down to 2 Shakers. 

The Shakers have left an indelible legacy on American history. Shaker furniture is much sought-after. They invented such things as the clothespin and the flat broom. Their music still lingers down through time. Aaron Copland's Appalachian Spring includes the Shaker hymn Simple Gifts, which I think most people would recognize. The Testament of Ann Lee is a strong, visually splendid film about this unique spiritual and utopian movement. With strong performances from Amanda Seyfried and Lewis Pullman, this will make compelling, if perhaps at times trying, viewing of a lost world.   

DECISION: B+