Dragnet (1987): A Review (Review #2005)

DRAGNET

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Christopher Plummer.

As both an homage and a spoof of the television show the film is based on, Dragnet knows enough to play the situations straight while also being a bit camp. Funny and self-aware, Dragnet balances the conflicting manners to full effect.

Los Angeles Police Department Sergeant Joe Friday (Dan Aykroyd) is a throwback to his uncle and namesake's era of police detective. Square-jawed, by-the-book, in full suit and fedora, Sergeant Friday loves the law and sticks to following every LAPD rule and procedure which he can quote down to the decimal. His newest case involves a series of thefts where the main clue is a literal calling card. A shadowy organization calling itself PAGAN leaves them at the scene of their crimes. Their most recent caper involves burning every copy of Bait Magazine, an adult publication run by publisher Jerry Caesar (Dabney Colman). 

Sgt. Friday is openly disdainful of Bait and everything connected to it. Not so is his newest partner, Pep Streebek (Tom Hanks). Low-key, sexually promiscuous and openly sarcastic, Streebek is everything Friday finds appalling about current police officers. Streebek, unlike Friday, is thrilled to go to the Caesar palace. Despite the targeting of Caesar's empire, this is supposed to be an auspicious moment for Caesar and his company. Bait Magazine is celebrating its 25th Anniversary with a lavish party and a reunion of all former Baitmates (the women featured in Bait Magazine) at Caesar's pleasure palace.

One person who would not like to see a Bait Magazine 26th Anniversary is Reverend Jonathan Whirley (Christopher Plummer). Whirley is the head of MAMA: The Moral Advance Movement of America, who is leading a crusade against the depravity in the City of Angels. Ostensibly on his side is Police Commissioner Jane Kirkpatrick (Elizabeth Ashley), who has her eyes on the Mayor's Office. She also wants a stop to the PAGAN crime wave. That crime wave reaches a climax when, thanks to the information obtained through PAGAN member and Caesar's driver Emil Muzz (Jack O'Halloran), Friday and Streebek come upon a PAGAN festival. This festival of People Against Goodness And Normalcy (P.A.G.A.N.) will culminate in the sacrifice of a young woman referred to as "the Virgin Connie Swail" (Alexandra Paul).

To the irritation of Kirkpatrick and exasperation of LAPD Captain Bill Gannon (Harry Morgan), Friday and Streebek appear to be both incompetent and insane in their PAGAN investigation. Eventually, when the Virgin Connie Swail identifies Whirley as the PAGAN High Priest who threw her into a pit containing a venomous snake, Kirkpatrick orders Gannon to suspend Friday. However, could Whirley actually be in cahoots with Caesar in a scheme to force out current LA Mayor Parvin (Bruce Gray) and get Kirkpatrick in? Are there double crosses and attempted gas poisonings about to happen? Will the Virgin Connie Swail remain so by the film's end?

Dragnet works because while it has fun with its plot, it still shows that it has a fondness for the original television show and its lead character. Joe Friday in Dragnet is not so much a buffoon as he is an anachronism, a cop from a bygone era in the mold of his late uncle. Friday may be almost psychotic in his devotion to law enforcement and a stickler for strict procedure. He is also at heart a decent, caring and honest man, effective at his job and thoroughly unflappable. Joe Friday is not a fool or an idiot. He has an understanding that not everyone will have the same views and methods that he holds even if he does not approve of said views and methods. In certain ways, Joe Friday is almost insanely tolerant of people no matter how awful or oddball they may be. 

Streebek is the most extreme example of someone who would find Friday maddening and vice versa. Friday to his credit is not cruel to Streebek or responds to Streebek's openly contemptuous manner in the same way. Instead, from Friday's perspective, he is trying to get Streebek to be a good police officer. The interplay between Aykroyd's Friday and Hanks' Streebek works well, making Dragnet into a solid buddy/cop comedy. 

Of particular note is when they go to Caesar's estate to get a report from the publisher. Pep is thrilled to meet Sylvia Wiss (Julia Jennings), the very first Baitmate. She clearly has designs on Sgt. Friday and has no problem disrobing in front of him, asking him if he thought her breasts were in any way inferior for a 43-year-old woman. Streebek is startled and aroused. Friday is equally startled, but he also maintains his composure at this bit of sexual harassment. In Aykroyd's staccato delivery (another throwback to the television show), he informs Wiss that he thinks that she has breasts bordering on the spectacular. It is in Aykroyd's perfectly rat-a-tat delivery and facial expression that makes this scene even funnier than it already is. 

Dragnet takes elements of the television show and elevates them to exaggerated but well-meaning levels. Friday's detailed narration, down to pointing out the exact time and his at times florid turns of phrases, are funny. One cannot help but laugh whenever Friday refers to his main witness as "the virgin Connie Swail". It is technically correct, but Friday not realizing how bizarre it sounds makes it all the funnier. At the PAGAN festival, the High Priest calls forth the virgin. "I don't like the sound of that," Friday says. "Let's just hope that they aren't referring to you," is Streebek's deadpan response. 

Earlier, they investigated a group of thefts at the Los Angeles Zoo. Among the thefts was a lion's mane, leaving the poor animal with a Mohawk. When Friday sadly but firmly tells Streebek who is going to tell the disappointed kids about how the lion looks, Streebek looks directly at the kids and tells them, "It'll grow back!". To Friday's surprise and chagrin, the kids cheer the news. At heart, Friday and Streebek work well together and even compliment the other. Friday, for example, acknowledges that the strip club that Streebek took him to does indeed have good coffee. 

Over and over again, Aykroyd's manner in how he can be so straightforward no matter how whacked-out the situations Friday finds himself in sells the comedy. Today, it may be hard to remember when Tom Hanks was not seen as this great dramatic actor but as a good comic one. Long before he was hailed for his consecutive Best Actor Oscar wins, Hanks was known mostly for a slew of overtly silly comedies like Bachelor Party and The Money Pit. In Dragnet, his Pep Streebek is in the early Hanks manner: the offbeat, goofy man who is taking little if anything seriously.  He has a great sarcastic manner that makes Pep likeable. He also has a nice bit of physical comedy when he is frenetically explaining how they had dived into a massive pit to stop a snake from eating both them and the virgin. 

Dragnet has some very respectable actors playing things for farce. Dabney Colman was a true thespian underappreciated in his lifetime. His Jerry Caesar, with some kind of vaguely Southern drawl, is hilarious in his manner. Blunt, goofy and easily taken in, Jerry Caesar is a fun and funny character. His final scene where he escapes the attempted assassination with a couple of beauties shows Colman knew to be exaggerated without looking idiotic. Elizabeth Ashley is appropriately exaggerated as Commissioner Kirkpatrick, plotting with Whirley to take power. With her husky voice and at times grandiose mannerisms (as well as some wild millinery choices), Ashley also shows she knows Dragnet is meant as a lark.

The big surprise is Christopher Plummer as the Reverend Jonathan Whirley. Like Hanks, Plummer will be a future Oscar winner. Here, his Whirley is openly insincere and exaggerated. Whether railing at the moral depravity that he secretly approves of to maintain his coffers full through donations to combat said depravity or playing others for fools, Plummer is having a ball being delightfully wicked. When presenting the human sacrifice to his PAGAN fools, Plummer recites a chant. "Evil bringeth hear our plea. She's as pure as she can be. White and clean as driven snow, from Orange County, here we go!" No one can recite such crazy lines with a mix of menace and mirth unless they knew that this was meant to be over-the-top.

Plummer does so well because he knows Whirley is a cartoon. When he is about to flee the country with the Virgin Connie Swail as his prisoner, Friday tells him that Whirley's mad scheme is doomed to fail. "Ah, sure, but just like every foaming rabid psycho in this city will a foolproof plan, you've forgotten you're facing the single finest fighting force ever assembled". With a comically puzzled face, Whirley responds in a slightly confused manner, "The Israelis?".  

In a nice touch, Harry Morgan reprises his role from the television series. This ties Dragnet the show to Dragnet the film. It also allows for some nice character building. Morgan and Aykroyd have some nice moments where Gannon attempts to guide his late partner's nephew into not letting his zeal get the best of him. Sometimes his irritation at Friday's manner is evident, such as when he rolls his eyes at Friday bemoaning how the citizens of Los Angeles will be disappointed that his partner retired suddenly.

The script by Aykroyd, Alan Zweibel and director Tom Mankiewicz is funny and also affectionate to the source material. It also has some wild and perhaps unrecognized elements. In what initially appears as a throwaway line and a joke, the opening narration states that the story is real, but the names were changed to protect the innocent. "For example, George Baker is now Sylvia Wiss". This sets the tone for the comedy that Dragnet is. 

However, the film actually features a character named "Sylvia Wiss". That character is the very first Baitmate who made the moves on Sergeant Friday. IF we go by what we were told in the narration, we could conclude that the woman with the spectacular breasts that disrobed in front of Friday and Streebek is really George Baker. It lends Dragnet a wild scenario that people watching might not think of. 

Dragnet does drag by the end, and it has a very illogical conclusion even for something this frothy. The Reverend and the Virgin are apprehended in the air by an LAPD fighter jet. While the Los Angeles Police Department having a fighter jet is part of the film's goofiness, wouldn't Whirley and Swail have long been in Mexico if they fled in the middle of the night? How far is the flight from Los Angeles into Mexican territory? 

I have a certain affection for Dragnet separate from my enjoyment of the film whenever I see it. Dragnet was one of my Mom's favorite films. I do not think that she ever saw the television show. However, she always found the line, "Thank God it's Friday!" hilarious. Funny and affectionate, Dragnet is fully aware without trying to ridicule the source material. Dragnet is a good enjoyable romp, and those are just the facts. 

DECISION: B-

Imitation of Life (1959): A Review (Review #2004)

 

IMITATION OF LIFE (1959)

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Lana Turner.

Douglas Sirk was the king of weepy melodrama. I figure that Imitation of Life, his remake of the 1934 film, is his crowning achievement. Lush, well-acted and moving if a bit long, Imitation of Life is a fine film.

Aspiring actress Lora Meredith (Lana Turner) is distraught over her missing daughter Susie. She soon finds her thanks in part to photographer Steve Archer (John Gavin). Susie has been playing on the beach with another little girl, Sarah Jane. Lora becomes acquainted with Annie Johnson (Juanita Moore) and is astonished when she discovers that Annie is Sarah Jane's mother. Annie is black, and Sarah Jane is so fair-skinned that she could easily pass for white herself. Annie and Sarah Jane are essentially homeless, and in a mix of kindness and gratitude Lora takes them to her cold-water apartment.

Soon, Annie becomes Lora's de facto maid, grateful for the room and board for herself and her daughter. Annie also becomes Lora's friend. Lora continues striving for theatrical work, attempting to balance finding acting work with raising Susie and her on-again-off-again relationship with Steve. After a lot of struggles and pushing away the sleazy but helpful theatrical agent Allen Loomis (Robert Alda), Lora gets a small part in a hit show. Her career as a Broadway comedic actress begins to rise. She also begins a long-term relationship with David Edwards (Dan O'Herlihy), the playwright who started her career.

Lora sacrifices her relationships with Steve and Susie (Sandra Dee) in an effort to improve her life and Susie's. Annie for her part struggles with Sarah Jane's continuing efforts to pass for white. She advises her daughter repeatedly not to be ashamed of her heritage. She also tells Sarah Jane that lying will never work. Sarah Jane (Susan Kohner), however, sees the advantages and privileges that come with both being white and the wealth she has lived in through Lora's career. 

Things appear to look up for everyone when Lora becomes successful as a dramatic actress. She also reunites with Steve. Unfortunately, Susie develops a yearning for Steve, who is oblivious to her affections. Susie sees Annie as her real mother. Sarah Jane does not, constantly trying to move through life as a white woman and being thwarted by Annie. Lora and Annie continue struggling with their relationships with their daughters until death finally comes for one. 

Your heart must simply be made out of stone if you do not shed a tear when Mahalia Jackson as a church soloist sings Trouble of the World at Annie's funeral. Annie's death scene is so beautifully played by Juanita Moore that one can see why Moore received a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination for her performance. Douglas Sirk got Moore to be quiet and simple when acting not just in this scene but throughout the film. This is not to say that Moore's Annie was weak or simple. She could rally to anger when she needed to. However, in the few times where she did not appear self-sacrificing, Annie was still at heart a good churchgoing woman broken by both her daughter's rejection and the reasons behind said rejection. 

Moore's quiet manner was a strong counterbalance to how Turner could be sometimes rather big. In that final scene between Annie and Lora, Moore's stillness and grace served to not make Turner's sometimes almost hysterical manner keep from slipping into farce. To be fair, Turner was playing an actress, so at times her at times big mannerism can be forgiven. What I can say about Lana Turner's performance in Imitation of Life is that it was competent. It was not great, but competent. Turner was also quite beautiful in the film. Truth be told, I think Lana Turner looked better as a middle-aged woman than as an ingenue. When Loomis attempts to place Lora on the casting couch, he remarks, "It was a good acting job. And you're very pretty". That seems a good summation of Lana Turner both in Imitation of Life and throughout her career. Still, there were some good moments from Turner in the film.

Kohner, like Moore, received a Best Supporting Actress nomination for Imitation of Life. To be honest, I found her performance at times a bit overwrought. However, she did a moving farewell scene with Moore when she tearfully says goodbye to the mother who loved her, perhaps too much. She also has a fine moment when she meets up with a boyfriend who confronts her about rumors of her heritage. As she keeps screaming that she is white, the boyfriend keeps slapping her about, eventually leaving her shellshocked and muddied. It makes for painful viewing.

Imitation of Life never specifies the extent of Sarah Jane's racial makeup. The closest is when early in the film, Annie tells Lora that Sarah Jane's father was either almost or practically white. It does feed into the cliche of the "tragic mulatto", though to be fair it is not Sarah Jane who dies. She, however, cannot fit into white society once her heritage is discovered. Yet, owning to her light complexion, she will not fit into the black one either. Sarah Jane is a tragic figure, and Kohner does a good job making her sometimes horrid manner a reaction against society's impositions versus pure selfishness. "It's a sin to be ashamed of what you are, and it's even worse to pretend," Annie admonishes Sarah Jane. It was true then; it is true now. Annie was at least aware that Sarah Jane's skin complexion would only end up being a curse on her daughter. Tragically, she never saw how the perception of Sarah Jane as a white woman would give her a taste of something that Annie herself could not have, making Sarah Jane's decisions if not right at least understandable. 

As aspect that I do not think has been talked much about is how Douglas Sirk crafted not only fine melodrama but subtle visual commentary. The best example is when, on two occasions, Sarah Jane shouts about how she is white. Both times: when with her boyfriend and when bidding farewell to Annie, Sarah Jane's reflection is visible through a window or mirror. This, I contend, is Sirk's suggestion that Sarah Jane is essentially split in two: the image that she wants to project and the reality of whom she is. The reflections metaphorically reflect Sarah Jane's divided soul and by extension 1950's America's obsession with racial percentages. We are still years away from the call to judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

John Gavin, like Lana Turner, was especially beautiful. He was stoic, respectable if a bit unremarkable. In his defense, however, it would have been hard for any actor to keep up with Sandra Dee. She was extremely perky through most of the film. Dee, however, did manage some strong dramatic scenes when berating Lora for putting career ahead of family despite the comforts her successful career brought them. 

As a side note, for a film about "passing", there was a bit of it in Imitation of Life. Both Kohner and John Gavin were of part-Mexican heritage. 

Imitation of Life is more than about how racism and self-loathing can destroy lives. It is also about the fraught relationship between mothers and daughters. Both Lora and Annie were at times oblivious to their daughter's distinct struggles. Lora put career first, Annie put her daughter over all other concerns. Despite their love for Susie and Sarah Jane, the mothers could not get to the root of them as people. Lush and tragic, Imitation of Life still moves the viewer. Maybe one day we as a society will be done with the Trouble of the World. 

DECISION: A-

Summer Under the Stars 2025: The Catalog

 

This is a catalog for the movies that I will review for the 2025 Turner Classic Movies Summer Under the Stars series. Films marked with a 🅤 will be shown for that star's day. Titles marked with a 🅣 are television productions.

August 1: Lana Turner: Imitation of Life (1959) 🅤

August 2: Christopher Plummer: Dragnet

August 3: Audrey Hepburn: Roman Holiday

August 4: Howard Keel: Show Boat (1951) 🅤

August 5: Claude Rains: The Pied Piper of Hamelin 🅣

August 6: Judy Garland: Judy Garland: By Myself 🅣

August 7: Ruby Dee: The Tall Target 🅤

August 8: James Garner: Murphy's Romance

August 9: Elizabeth Taylor: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

August 10: Clark Gable: Run Silent, Run Deep

August 11: Glenda Farrell: Little Caesar 🅤

August 12: Pedro Armendariz: Soledad's Shawl (El Rebozo de Soledad) 🅤

August 13: Shirley MacLaine: Bewitched

August 14: Sterling Hayden: Winter Kills 🅤

August 15: Janet Leigh: Touch of Evil 🅤 

August 17: Jennifer Jones: Terminal Station

August 20: James Cagney: James Cagney: Top of the World 🅣🅤

August 21: Patricia Neal: Hud 🅤

August 24: Henry Fonda: On Golden Pond

August 25: Shirley Jones: Beyond the Poseidon Adventure 🅤

August 26: Tom Courtnay: The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner 🅤

August 27: Joan Crawford: Strait-Jacket

August 31: Irene Dunne: Show Boat (1936) 🅤

Summer Under the Stars 2025: Some Thoughts

 

This year's Summer Under the Stars has a couple of major surprises in its slate of stars. This is the second time in three years where we have no silent films or silent film stars. It also is the second time in three years where there are no purely non-English language performers. Last year, you had one silent film star (John Gilbert) and one foreign-language film star (Jean-Paul Belmondo). This year, there will be neither.

You do have two foreign stars, both making their debuts on SUTS: Pedro Armendariz and Gina Lollobrigida. In a surprise, both of them will have their foreign-language work features alongside their English-language films. This is, to my mind, the first time that TCM has featured a greater representation of a foreign star's body of work. When Dolores del Rio was a SUTS player, all her films were in English. This year, we will see a mix of Armendariz's Mexican and American work. Lollobrigida will have only one French film on her day. Hedy Lamarr and Joan Crawford have silent films in their filmography, but they will not be shown for their days. 

One player also making his debut, Donald O'Connor, will have his salute coincide with the centennial of his birth. Another debut player, Tom Courtnay, is one of three living players to be featured this month. The other two living players at the time of this writing have been featured before. Curiously, both are Shirleys: Shirley MacLaine and Shirley Jones. Along with Armendariz, Lollobrigida, O'Connor, and Courtnay, the other debuts for this year are Christopher Plummer, Ruby Dee, Charles Bronson and James Gleason. This Class of 2025 has eight members, which is a far cry from last year's thirteen debuts.

It is also curious that Lollobrigida, Plummer and Dee could easily have been honored prior to their deaths in 2023, 2021 and 2014 respectively. Moreover, I am surprised that there are no memorial Summer Under the Stars days for people who died recently. No SUTS for Maggie Smith, Gene Hackman, Gena Rowlands or James Earl Jones. They could easily have received SUTS days while they were still alive (I believe Hackman and Smith were featured in previous Summer Under the Stars salutes).

They did feature George Segal in the 2021 Summer Under the Stars lineup to note his death that year. They did feature Stella Stevens in the 2023 Summer Under the Stars lineup to note her death that year. I do not understand why George Segal can receive a SUTS tribute day, but Janis Paige (1922-2024) cannot. 

You also still have some stars who could see their films featured: Bruce Dern, Robert Duvall, Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Joanne Woodward, Joan Collins, Diane Ladd, Ellen Burstyn. To my knowledge, none of them have been SUTS players. Perhaps we could have slipped in one of them in place of Audrey Hepburn, Elizabeth Taylor and/or Joan Crawford (who were all featured in 2022). Perhaps we could do with a kind of moratorium on certain SUTS players. Why could we not go three years without moving on to another actor? 

Even if we needed to have Hepburn, Taylor or Crawford, why not be a little more adventurous with their selected films? A showing of 1989's Always, 1973's Night Watch and 1964's Strait-Jacket would have been interesting choices for Hepburn, Taylor and Crawford respectively. I would have found that better than yet another screening of The Comedians, which I reviewed for Taylor's SUTS day in 2022. 

Again, I understand the issue about broadcast rights. That, I believe, was a major holdup for not having Meryl Streep showcased until last year. Still, it is disheartening to not see some players not be shown while being treated to many-seen films from many-seen stars. It kind of takes the anticipation out of things.

In a curious or perhaps intentional plan, we have Ruby Dee be 2025's black SUTS player. Last year, her husband, Ossie Davis, was the black featured performer. It is interesting that when Paul Newman was saluted in 2023, Turner Classic Movies did not opt to salute his wife, fellow Academy Award winner Joanne Woodward the following year. Most curious.

I cannot say that this year's slate is thrilling. Some of the omissions are strange.

You could have a bit of counterprogramming by showing 1953's House of Wax, where Charles Bronson (billed as Charles Buchinsky) played a mute. In an interesting twist, the original Mystery of the Wax Museum had in its cast Glenda Farrell, who is also a SUTS player. That film won't be shown for her day. It might have made for a nice compare/contrast. 

I am also dubious that Turner Classic Movies could not get broadcast rights for either or both Mystery of the Wax Museum and/or House of Wax. To their credit, both the 1936 and 1951 versions of Show Boat will be shown for Irene Dunne and Howard Keel respectively.

This year's slate features twelve competitive Oscar winners (Judy Garland and Kirk Douglas being Honorary winners). Along with already named Plummer, Hepburn, Taylor, MacLaine, Jones, and Crawford, you have Clark Gable, Jennifer Jones, James Cagney, Patricia Neal, Frank Sinatra and Henry Fonda. Oddly, eight of those SUTS players will not have their Academy Award winning performances screened. Only Gable, MacLaine, Neal and Jones will have their Best Actor/Actress films shown. MacLaine's win for 1983's Terms of Endearment along with Courtnay's Oscar-nominated turn in The Dresser the same year will be some of the "newer" films shown for the still-living players. 

Still, credit where credit is due. Turner Classic Movies has managed to bring two films made more recently: 1990's The Court-Martial of Jackie Robinson and the most recent film listed for screening, 2009's The Last Station for Ruby Dee and Christopher Plummer respectively. I might quibble that The Court-Martial of Jackie Robinson is a television movie. I also note that Turner Classic Movies' sister station Turner Network Television produced it. Still, it makes for nice symmetry for Dee, who played Jackie Robinson's wife in The Jackie Robinson Story and his mother in The Court-Martial of Jackie Robinson. 

There is also the nice surprise that one of Plummer's best-known films, The Sound of Music, will be shown for his day. It is a bigger surprise that this will be The Sound of Music's premiere on TCM. Last year, TCM chose to show Around the World in 80 Days for Marlene Dietrich's day despite Dietrich merely making a cameo appearance. I'm surprised that they didn't do that for Christopher Plummer and shown Malcolm X.  

My question is why could TCM not screen On Golden Pond for Henry Fonda? It is from 1981, so it cannot be the time frame. 1985's Murphy's Romance, which earned James Garner a Best Actor nomination, is a mere two years after the most recent films for the still-working MacLaine and Courtnay. The case to not screen 2010's Beginners, the film that won Christopher Plummer his Best Supporting Actor Oscar, is weakened by them showing The Last Station, made a year earlier. However, to not feature either of Elizabeth Taylor's wins for Butterfield 8 or Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? seems a curious choice. 

As I look at both the features and stars for this year's Summer Under the Stars, I find a mix of good and bad. It is always nice to see some new faces pop up. It is a bit disappointing to see the same films shown for the same players. I am a bit of an addict in that I enjoy Summer Under the Stars. 

I do see it more as an exercise rather than an experience. 

Harry & Meghan: Escaping the Palace. The Television Movie

HARRY & MEGHAN: ESCAPING THE PALACE

I often say that a Part III will be either a disaster or the harbinger of a greater disaster. The third and final part of the Sussex Trilogy more than lives up to that idea. Harry & Meghan: Escaping the Palace is one of the worst things ever to be broadcast in human history. This love letter to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex has no redeeming qualities, nothing to say that anyone should watch it outside of psychological torture.

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex (Jordan Dean) is still haunted by the death of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales (Bonnie Soper). It is to where when he dreams of his mother's fatal car accident, it is not Diana whom he sees crumpled. It is his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (Sydney Morton). All that Meghan and Harry want to do is make the world a beautiful place. Unfortunately, all criticism against them is based purely and solely on racism. Harry is enraged that his brother William (Jordan Whalen) will not release endless statements against the racists who criticize Meghan. For his part, William is at most noncommittal on the subject.

Meghan, for her part, is collapsing emotionally. The strain of the never-ending racism, sexism and anti-Americanism within and without the British Royal Family and its supporting institution is leaving her emotionally spent. Just like his mother, Meghan is on the verge of a total meltdown. Soon other resentments come the Sussex's way. Harry is displeased at the criticism that they get for spending three million pounds on their small Frogmore home while William and his wife Catherine (Laura Mitchell) can spend five million. On their trip to Africa, Harry realizes that they have to leave The Firm. Surprisingly, it is Meghan who thinks this is wrong.

Nonetheless, the blocks against all the good that the Sussexes want to do leave them no choice. The Firm will not grant them permission to have a "Sussex Royal" brand that they can market, not even a Sussex Royal webpage. Harry is desperate to get out. Dropping a bombshell on his father, Prince Charles (Steve Coulter), the Duke of Sussex gives his father, the Prince of Wales, a ten-minute warning before announcing what was dubbed "Megxit". 

William is quietly enraged at his younger brother. Harry is more popular than William. William is jealous of his sister-in-law: her intelligence, her class, her compassionate, her kindness. The so-called Sandringham Summit did not please everyone, but now Harry & Meghan will now be free. At last, they in their California exile can speak "their truth" to Oprah, a final mirror between Harry's mother and wife.

Harry & Meghan: Escaping the Palace premiered on August 6, 2021. Oprah with Meghan and Harry premiered on March 7, 2021. This is an important, if not vital detail. I figure that the two previous Harry & Meghan Lifetime films were rushed into production to cash in on the wedding and anniversary. This five-month difference, however, is a surprising turnaround time. I figure that you need time to cast, write a screenplay, gather your crew, make the film and edit it before releasing it; five months to my mind seems an incredibly fast production.

As such, I am highly, highly suspect that Escaping the Palace was de facto Sussex propaganda. It is so openly and shamelessly pro-Harry & Meghan that at one point, I did ask, "Who produced this, Harry and Meghan?". Everything that Harry and Meghan did was good. Everything that everyone else did was bad. I do not know a production where the protagonists were painted in such a way that you end up surprised that you did not see them literally walk on water. 

As a side note, I cannot help noticing that in the Oprah interview, Meghan gets top billing. I do not know why that detail stands out to me. It just does.

Escaping the Palace went out of its way to showcase that the villain in this drama was none other than Prince William. I'm genuinely surprised that screenwriter Scarlett Lacey and director Menhaj Huda did not give the-then Duke of Cambridge a mustache to twirl. I'm also suprised that Lacey and Huda were not taking literal dictation from Harry and Meghan about what to put in the film. It would not surprise me if it ended up that Lacey and Huda collaborated with the Sussexes the same way that they allegedly collaborated with Omid Scobie, a British reporter who cowrote Finding Freedom, which is seen as favorable to them.

William's scowl, his lack of sympathy for the almost divine Meghan Markle, his refusal or reluctance to welcome our bright light of California sunshine, all show him as a cold man. If Escaping the Palace is to be believed, William comes dangerously close to agreeing with all the racists who mock his sister-in-law. This William is a cold, emotionally disengaged figure, one who will not bend on anything. He, for example, refuses flat-out to have lunch with his brother prior to the Sandringham Summit. William does not even want to go and would like to see them cut off entirely.

The villainy of Prince William is such that on their final official engagement, he very pettily had the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's names removed from the program. He also had them sit with Commonwealth officials rather than the Royal Family if memory serves right. All this one-sided animosity, from what I understand, is driven by William's blinding jealousy towards Meghan. Meghan, in short, can be a star, while William will have nothing. 

I cannot help but think that Escaping the Palace had almost a vendetta against the-now Prince of Wales. "You're a disruptor," he tells Meghan to her face when the Sussexes learn their names were stricken off the program. Honestly, it would have been easier if Escaping the Palace had shown William literally shooting at Meghan. 

Even if all that Escaping the Palace showed was true, the entire production has such cringe to it that it was genuinely painful to watch. The film has some truly awful bits of dialogue that no actor could have made them sound anything other than pretty groan-inducing. Meghan has been made guest editor of British Vogue magazine, where she will profile history-making women. Ever professional, we see her typing away, laser-focused on her work.  Harry comes in to see his wife looking admiringly at the various females who will be profiled as Forces of Change. "All these women are going to bend the arc of history," Meghan wistfully notes. Harry, looking like a besotted puppy, adds, "Just like you".

It is a pretty nauseating moment. I do not know of any husband who would make such a statement short of coercion. Many things will Meghan Markle, or Sussex, or Mountbatten-Windsor, or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha will do. "Bend the arc of history" is not one that comes to mind. Become a failed podcaster, she will do. Host a lifestyle show where her guests will praise her, she will do. Sell jam online, she will do. Bend the arc of history, though?

As if that was not laughable enough, we get this monstrous bit of dialogue when news of them stepping back as senior royals hits the headlines. "Megxit. Like it's all your doing. Like you're the wicked witch, stealing their beloved prince because he's no mind of his own". Thus spoke Harry, and that bit is all kinds of wrong. I understand that this is meant to communicate what Harry thinks is the public impression. However, it is too on-the-nose to be believable. It suggests less genuine thought than it does the production's perceptions about the public's perceptions. 

Escaping the Palace has so many awful bits of dialogue. Perhaps the nadir of all this is when they go on that African tour. Surprisingly, it is not Meghan's lament of "I couldn't even speak my truth without all these caveats", the Firm pushing against Meghan's insistence on reminding people that she is a woman of color. It is when Harry decides that they must leave the Firm. As portrayed in Escaping the Palace, Meghan is the voice of reason, urging her husband against even the mere suggestion of stepping away. He insists that he is leaving the Firm, not the family.

"But the Monarchy is a family," she says. Harry responds with "So is the Mafia". It is a ghastly thing to say. Had I been Prince William, I would have been incensed that my brother was comparing my family to a criminal organization.

Escaping the Palace hammers hard on making Meghan the new Diana. We see constant flashbacks and flashforwards between the two, whether suffering breakdowns while pregnant or speaking candidly to the press about their troubled lives inside the Palace. Oddly, the effect is not to make one sympathetic and see the parallels between the Princess of Wales and the Duchess of Sussex. It ends up coming across as calculating on Meghan's part, attempting to force a parallel to her very stupid husband.

There are no performances in Escaping the Palace. I want desperately to believe that Jordan Dean can actually act and was not cast because he is a pale man with bright red hair. Again, the dialogue would test the skills of any actor. However, there were times when I genuinely wondered if Dean was trying to make Prince Harry Scottish. He and Sydney Morton are out third Harry & Meghan, and both are awful. Simply awful. Morton is so blank as Meghan that one would have liked for her to go on a rampage just to see her be anything other than saintly.

We do have some returning cast members from past Sussex films. Jordan Whaley is back as Prince William, making him the villain of the film. Laura Mitchell completes the trilogy as Catherine Middleton. She still looks more like Sarah Brightman than Catherine, Princess of Wales to me. She also made Catherine this bit of a dimwit. One scene has her having her nails done while Meghan discusses important matters. 

Harry & Meghan: Escaping the Palace is as close to pro-Sussex propaganda as one can find outside Sussex Squad fanfic. Terrible in every way (acting, writing, directing, the sappy score), this is enough to make one yearn for the evenhanded tone of With Love, Meghan. As I conclude this Sussex Trilogy, I never figured that each succeeding production would get progressively worse. Then again, perhaps that is a reflection of how the general public sees Harry & Meghan now.

0/10

Godzilla (1998): A Review (Review #2003)

GODZILLA

It can be said that Godzilla is a disaster movie in more ways than one. Perhaps something got lost in the translation. I put it down to something simpler: everyone involved in Godzilla made all the wrong choices.    

What would nuclear bomb tests in French Polynesia matter to researcher Nick Tatopoulos (Matthew Broderick)? He is too busy investigating worms in Chernobyl to pay attention to such things. That is until the U.S. government pulls him out to look into the potential of a strange creature literally leaving its footprints all over the world. He seems perpetually perplexed about this oddball investigation. He is more perplexed by the strange presence of men claiming to be French insurance agents, headed by the mysterious Phillipe Roache (Jean Reno). 

The creature is now racing to The City That Never Sleeps (which if memory serves right, is the actual name that appears on-screen). Colonel Hicks (Kevin Dunn) orders a mass evacuation of the city, over the loud objections of Mayor Ebert (Michael Lerner) and Mayor Ebert's aide, Gene (Lorry Goldman). Mayor Ebert is in the midst of a reelection campaign and fears that this will wreck his chances. Nick offers a plan to capture the creature, but it fails. 

He also, albeit unintentionally, brings more panic when his Nick's ex-girlfriend Audrey Timmons (Maria Pitillo) finds a secret tape revealing that the creature has a name and has been seen before. Eager to advance, she tries to be the one to break the news. However, she is thwarted by her boss, arrogant and egocentric television reporter Charles Caiman (Harry Shearer). Thus, we learn about "Godzilla".

The army and scientists continue to battle against this giant lizard in the perpetual rainstorm. As a side note, it should have been known as The City That Has Endless Rain given how it always seemed to be raining. Not even Seattle gets this much rain. No one will listen to Tatopoulos' warning that Godzilla is pregnant and laying eggs all over the place. While the army, under the bumbling command of Sergeant O'Neal (Doug Savant) attempts to battle Godzilla, the French do listen to Nick. 

Audrey and her cameraman, Victor "Animal" Palotti (Hank Azaria) also go down into the bowels of the big city to find these eggs. Will the army as well as Mayor Ebert and Gene finally see that Nick Tatopoulos is right? Will Godzilla be defeated? Will all the eggs be found, or will one egg escape to hatch for a sequel?

Alas, we will never know, for Godzilla was such a disaster that we never got the trilogy this Godzilla was setting up. This is the first time that I have seen this American adaptation of the long-running Toho series. I think that it is a terrible, terrible film. There are so many reasons for Godzilla being a terrible, terrible film.

I think I will start with the screenplay written by producer Dean Devlin and director Roland Emmerich. Judging from the final product, I do not think that Devlin and Emmerich ever decided if Godzilla was a comedy or a drama. There was this running gag of people constantly mispronouncing or struggling to pronounce "Tatopoulos". Those repeated flubbings, along with Broderick's childlike corrections, consistently fell flat.

The situation, I figure, should be serious. However, it was not taken seriously. Worse, Godzilla could not have fun with the premise either. Savant's scaredy-cat O'Neal seems at odds with the no-nonsense Colonel Hicks. You question Hicks' sanity by appointing O'Neal to be in charge on the ground. Worse, Godzilla ends with O'Neal at what looks like a party with "Animal's" wife Lucy (Arabella Field). Was that another running gag, how Animal was afraid of his wife?

I think this would be a good place to briefly touch on Mayor Ebert and his aide, Gene. This is clearly a swipe at film reviewers (Roger) Ebert and Gene (Siskel). Here is where Godzilla's inability to decide if it is a comedy or drama comes into play. Devlin and Emmerich were getting their frustrations out against Siskel and Ebert by making the characters of Ebert and Gene these incompetent boobs. Fine, I suppose that some fun can be had at the expense of two influential people who have not liked their work. That being said, the casting of Lerner and Goldman is deliberately meant to remind audiences of who they really are supposed to be.

Lerner and Goldman were made to look so much like Ebert and Siskel that no one could have missed what they thought was a clever joke. If you didn't get the joke by the end, their screentime ends with Gene walking out on Ebert, giving him two thumbs down when he tells the Mayor what he thinks of his campaign. I do/did not often agree with Gene Siskel, but here he is right: it was petty. I also agree with Siskel and Ebert that they set up this duo to stand in for Devlin and Emmerich's bête noirs, yet they could not bother to have Godzilla stomp on them. I do not know if audiences really expected Godzilla to stomp on them. I do think that they could have gone all the way with that.

I also think that if they had made Mayor Ebert very thin and attractive, and given perhaps City Councilman or Deputy Mayor Gene a full head of hair, that might have been clever. Instead, they went the easy way but ended up giving everyone nothing.

Another reason why Godzilla failed is in its visual effects. I was reminded of something said, ironically enough by Siskel and Ebert. They held that many visual effects take place in the rain because it makes it easier to obscure the monsters, or something to that effect. Godzilla has a near-permanent rainfall. Granted, I think that there was mention of a hurricane or superstorm beating down on the City That Never Sleeps. However, it does become almost laughable to always have rain. When we do see Godzilla, which I figure is the reason people went to see it, Godzilla is a disappointment. One scene in particular had it look like Godzilla was dry-humping a building. 

It is a bad thing also when the audience is led to think that Godzilla has been killed, but there is still an hour and a half to go in this two hour snoozefest. 

Finally, Godzilla fails because of its performances. Matthew Broderick looks like a child in the film. He also pretty much behaves like one, with a near-permanent look of confusion at whatever happens to be going on. Hank Azaria embarrasses himself with his broad Nuw Yawk accent. That he is actually from New York makes it more embarrassing. His Simpsons costar Harry Shearer was also bad as the obnoxious reporter who was not above sexual harassment of Audrey. I suppose that I should recognize that Shearer was playing obnoxious correctly. As such, he wasn't meant to be likeable. He just never made the case that Charles Caiman would be the premiere news anchor in New York.

Jean Reno was there just for the cash. I figure he was there also to appeal to foreign markets. He was directed to play Godzilla as a comedy. How else to explain his adopting of an Elvis accent to fool U.S. troops that he was a downhome country boy. 

One feels for Maria Patillo, as Godzilla was meant to be her big breakout role. Instead, it became her career death knell, making only two more films and several guest appearances on television since. To be fair, she had a long-running stint on television's Providence, and it is unfair to blame Patillo exclusively for Godzilla ending up a flop. She was given a pretty thankless role as this mix of ninny and shrewd reporter. It was not a good performance, but it was not a good character. I think that Doug Savant gave a worse performance. Savant, coming off a run on Melrose Place, had a similar issue that many in the cast had. He played it as if Godzilla was a comedy. If there were any justice, Savant would have received a Razzie for his performance, not Patillo.

Again, this is not to say that anyone gave a good performance in Godzilla. It is merely to say that some were singled out that perhaps should not have been.

Godzilla is a disaster. It is worse than that. It is boring, visually unappealing and downright moronic. The big lizard deserves so much better. So does the audience. 

DECISION: F

Godzilla: King of the Monsters. A Review

GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS

I was not impressed with the 2014 Godzilla reboot. I was not the only one who noted that a major issue in Godzilla was the absence of Godzilla himself. The production crew of its sequel, Godzilla: King of the Monsters, decided to course correct by heavily featuring our title character. That is a step in the right direction. Pity that everything else is a slog.

Still traumatized from the death of her son, Dr. Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) channels her grief through her work with the shadowy group known as Monarch. In Monarch's vast facilities, she manages to use her new device, ORCA, to calm down the newest creature birthed at the facility. It is called "Mothra". To everyone's shock, a group of ecoterrorists, headed by Alan Jonah (Charles Dance) storms the facility. They abduct Dr. Russell and her daughter, Madison (Millie Bobby Brown). 

Madison's father, Dr. Mark Russell (Kyle Chandler) is desperate to find his ex-wife and only surviving child. Monarch scientists Drs. Ishiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) and Vivienne Graham (Sally Hawkins) for their part want to find ORCA. Yes, they do want to also rescue Emma and Madison, but ORCA will help them with the other Titans, the various creatures now emerging throughout the world. Mark, Serizawa and Graham go to a secret Monarch base in Antartica, where a super-creature dubbed "Monster Zero" is being held. Unfortunately, Jonah got there first. More shocking is that Emma is helping Jonah and his group to release Monster Zero, unleashing a wave of worldwide destruction.

Is this a case of Stockholm syndrome? No, for Emma is firmly in cahoots with Jonah. She has decided that the only way to save the earth from ecological disaster is to purge the human population by letting the Titans run loose. Now it becomes an endless battle between Emma/Jonah and Mark/Monarch to see who will triumph. 

This will mean a literal Clash of the Titans. Monster Zero, revealed as King Ghidorah, takes its many heads to do battle against none other than Godzilla. Mothra and Rodan also join the battle. This battle royale will cost some of our characters' lives, but who will ultimately win: Ghidorah or Godzilla? Who will in the end be King of the Monsters?

If anything, I can give Godzilla: King of the Monsters credit for playing all of this so seriously. There was no winking to the camera. There was no real sense of fun save perhaps for Bradley Whitford's Dr. Rick Stanton. Godzilla: King of the Monsters was going to play all this straight. That perhaps was why it ended up being, well, a bit boring.

Granted, not as boring as its predecessor. However, its two-hour-plus runtime meant that it became a bit convoluted at times. Perhaps screenwriters Zach Shields and Michael Dougherty (the latter directing) would have done better to not give the audience a bit of a bait-and-switch with the kidnapping part. If Emma is working with Jonah to essentially wipe out much of humanity to start the world fresh, it might have been better to have her steal the ORCA from the get-go. 

King of the Monsters has a major handicap in that it expects the audience to have vast knowledge of the various monsters flapping about. I'm sure those well-versed in Godzilla lore were excited to see Mothra, Rodan, and Ghidorah battling it out. For most, I figure, we would be a bit perplexed.

The performances enhance the serious nature of King of the Monsters. Vera Farmiga is such an underused talent. It is almost a shame to see her in schlock like this. She does take all this seriously, her scene explaining the need to let the Titans run rampant as good an effort to play giant lizards on a rampage straightforward. However, it seemed to be a bit too serious to where it is dour.

Kyle Chandler, ever youthful, was so intensely angry as to veer close to parody. I honestly cannot remember Millie Bobby Brown in this. She was, I figure, meant to be her parents' conscience. I did not get the sense that she was anything. Watanabe kept to the serious tone King of the Monsters had. His sacrifice, I figure, was meant to be moving and tragic. I just figured this was a way to save him from more Godzilla movies. I thought that of every major character who met their doom. 

Godzilla: King of the Monsters was big. It was loud. It pushed to being spectacle and exciting. I will concede that it was a step better than the first film of this revived franchise. Amid all the destruction, I did not care about the humans. I do not think that is a good thing. It is not a terrible film. If it is on, it will serve as background noise. It just falls a bit short, which is something not often associated with Titans.

DECISION: C-

Truman & Tennessee: An Intimate Conversation. A Review

TRUMAN AND TENNESSEE: AN INTIMATE CONVERSATION

Had the term existed in their time, Truman Capote and Tennessee Williams would have probably referred to each other as a frenemy. These two openly gay Southern writers respected and detested the other, loved and hated in equal measure. Truman & Tennessee: An Intimate Conversation, puts these two titans of American literature as friends, rivals, and what one was to the other.

The documentary uses archival footage and off-screen interviews. We also have their personal writings read by Jim Parsons as Truman Capote and Zachary Quinto as Tennessee Williams. Tennessee Williams and Truman Capote were more alike than merely their shared heritage. Both of them, for example, had drunk parents: Williams his father, Capote his mother. Both of them found inspiration in the writings that they discovered early in their lives: Moby Dick for Capote, the works of Chekov for Williams.

Their lives continued to have parallels as they built up their literary careers. Despite being Southern to their core, their great success came once they hit New York City. Capote loved the Big Apple and loathed Gore Vidal. Williams was the opposite: have great respect and admiration for Vidal but finding New York less to his liking. The two wordsmiths soon hit the big time with their works, celebrated and feted by high society and critics. 

Those critics, however, would eventually, perhaps inevitably, turn against them. Capote and Williams were left slightly dumbfounded on how they went out of fashion. Things got worse when both lost their long-term partners and started flitting from one pretty young thing to another. They also fell into their separate addictions to booze and pills. 

Truman and Tennessee had a curious relationship, part admiration, part irritation. Through their letters and words, we find that they could be very bitchy about the other. Williams had no issue referring to his frenemy as "Miss Capote". Tennessee, according to Truman, "is not intelligent". To be fair, Tennessee unlike Truman was wise enough to try and break into his frenemy's home and get caught. Eventually, the adoration both public and private faded from view for these two figures. Truman Capote outlived Tennessee Williams by merely a year and a half, Capote dead at 59, Williams at 71.

I wonder, in retrospect, if Truman & Tennessee: An Intimate Conversation went a bit overboard in painting a portrait of parallel lives. Director Lisa Immordino Vreeland certainly wants to show how they both were almost twins. Everything from their family histories to their eventual fall into addiction is shown as being similar and happening at similar times. I do not think that Capote and Williams were mirroring the other person. These two were different and distinct people. As such, I wonder if Truman & Tennessee: An Intimate Conversation is less about what one thought of the other. It is more like it is trying to make a case that somehow, Capote and Williams are almost the same because they lived the same series of situations. 

A major flaw is the voiceover work. Jim Parsons sounded like a thinner-voiced Jim Parsons. He sounded nothing like Truman Capote. Especially in the beginning, Parsons felt too forced in trying to come across as Capote. While I can see how Truman & Tennessee was not attempting to do mimicry. However, I think Parsons struggled to sound like Capote. As such, I never heard Capote's distinct voice both artistically and vocally. Quinto was better as Tennessee Williams, his Southern drawl closer to Williams' voice.

It was easier to hear Williams' words than Capote's words because Quinto sounded better than Parsons. That is not to say that Zachary Quinto sounded exactly like Tennessee Williams. He just sounded better than Parsons. 

Truman & Tennessee: An Intimate Conversation at times is a bit too fixated on making their lives parallel ones. This is especially true when we see both of them interviewed by David Frost on separate occasions. I do not think that it would be surprising that both of these writers would be interviewed on the same program. Again, whether Truman & Tennessee wanted to push the idea that they were going through the same situations I cannot say for certain. It just looked that way.

I hope that people do not think that I disliked the documentary. On the contrary, for I thought that Truman & Tennessee: An Intimate Conversation is a well-crafted documentary that will give viewers good insight into these figures. I just do not think that because both were gay Southern writers that they are parallels. Each was his own man. Each was creative. Their friendship, at times their cattiness towards the other, is an interesting subject. Truman & Tennessee: An Intimate Conversation does much to bring their own stories to the viewer. It is a conversation worth listening in on.

DECISION: B+

Paris is Burning: A Review (Review #2000)

PARIS IS BURNING

Long before Madonna told us to "strike a pose and Vogue", there was an underground world doing just that, filled with glamour and outrageousness. Director Jennie Livingston takes into the demimonde of fierce queens who throw shade to their rivals in Paris Is Burning, capturing the decadence and tragedy of this formerly hidden subculture. 

It is New York City, 1987. We learn that to be black, gay and male is a hard burden in the world. However, there is a place, a very special place, where those are not impediments to taking the spotlight. That world is the New York ball circuit. These balls are where black and Hispanic drag queens can strut their stuff for trophies and recognition. The various personalities have something of a sponsorship with various "Houses", a formed family that can be considered something like a gay street gang. The houses provide training and guidance for these warriors of glamour.

One of the queens of the New York ball scene is Pepper LaBeija, who is the "Mother" of House of LaBeija. There are other Houses, like House of Xtravaganza. The various competitions at the balls are a wide-ranging set. There are those who aspire to be like the characters on the television soap opera Dynasty. However, there are other categories, some quite surprising to those on the outside. A group of ball participants compete in a Military category, where one competitor tells us, "Simple wins". The realness (to be able to pass for whatever you are dressing as) is a major factor in winning various competitions.

It is not just about the most beautiful or glamorous. It is also about being the most authentic looking. This world of balls has their own nomenclature. "Throwing shade" is knocking out your competitor with subtle insults. Being able to "read" someone is trash talking someone but with specific quips. If you want to have a dance off, you have to do some voguing (the name coming from Vogue magazine). 

Two years later, we learn a few things. This world has now attracted such figures as Fran Lebowitz, Geoffrey Holder and Gwen Vernon, who love the voguing. However, some old school ballers like Dorian Corey see these changes with a disdainful eye, preferring the glamour over the realness. We also learn that Venus Xtravangaza, a young aspiring ball queen, was murdered. Venus had been dead for four days when found under a bed in a sleazy motel, strangled.

The world of Paris is Burning is a fascinating one, almost like an alternate universe. The various figures that are profiled would probably be quickly rejected in the straight world. They would especially be rejected in a black or Hispanic macho world. Yet here, the various Houses could be seen as a variation of street gangs. You are loyal to them. They take the place of your biological family. The rumbles are not done on the street. They are done on the dance floor. I think one of the participants interviewed even said that walking at the ball (going down to compete) was like getting jumped. 

The viewer sees the ball contestants strip away from the stereotype of drag queens attempting to look as glamorous, if not as outrageous, as one can. Yes, there are those who do go all-out in elegant to elaborate costumes. However, there are also competitions where it is more about how much you mirror the world that rejects you than about how elegant you appear. I think many, me included, would be surprised to learn that some of the house members can win trophies for looking downright bourgeoise. Who would think that one could win a drag ball competition for looking like a businessman on Wall Street?

It is almost as if the world of Paris is Burning is a reaction and mockery of the world that has excluded the participants. Even in the drag world, the black and Hispanic men felt exclusion due to their race. Here, they created their own universe, one where they not only fit in but rule. The world bends to their will. Here, they can both integrate and be separate from the straight world. Paris is Burning not only captures this world of men strutting their stuff for the world to marvel at. It is an affirmation of themselves and an open mockery of those who reject them due to race or sexual orientation. In some ways, the drag balls are an act of resistance, a successor to cakewalks danced to mock dominant white culture.

Paris is Burning probably did not create some of the vernacular that is fully part of everyday American speech. I figure that perhaps it introduced it to a wider audience. Being able to "read" someone, delighting in "throwing shade" at a rival, these are things that we say without thinking where they came from. 

Paris is Burning is an extraordinary look into an almost lost world. While I figure that balls still exist, we saw at the end how they were coming out into the mainstream. Some of the old school ball members did not like it. The film also does not hide the tragedy and danger in this world. Venus Xtravaganza was the most extreme example, murdered during the filming. However, the specter of AIDS hangs over this world, which would claim some of the people interviewed. 

The men and women in Paris is Burning are fierce, fabulous and unafraid. They are masters and mistresses of throwing shade and not answering to anyone other than their housemates. 

DECISION: B+ (8/10)

1984: A Review

1984

The term "1984" has been bandied about for a few years now. The Right and the Left have adopted the George Orwell novel to describe what their political opponents would do if in power. The temptation to release a film adaptation of Orwell's 1984 in 1984 was probably too great to resist. 1984 has excellent performances, including a farewell from one of best actors never to reach his full potential.

60796 Citizen Winston Smith (John Hurt) lives in Oceania, which he and his fellow citizens are told is a paradise of plenty. This bucolic world is in sharp contrast to what they are told about their arch-nemesis, Eurasia, which they have been at war since time immemorial. Smith's job at the Ministry of Information is to alter history, take heroes and make them villains and vice versa when needed. All citizens of Oceania are united against their great enemy within, Goldstein, who is lurking under every bed.

Smith, unlike the other citizens, is secretly not content. He has memories of a world different from Oceania, with a mother and brother. He records his unauthorized thoughts in a secret diary, doing his best to keep out of sight of the omnipresent ruler of Oceani, Big Brother. He also meets the alluring Julia (Suzanna Hamilton). She is outwardly compliant to Big Brother's commands, but she in her manner has a mind of her own. Soon, they begin a passionate affair of body and mind.

However, Big Brother is watching you. Their affair is unmasked, and Smith must answer to the apparatchik O'Brien (Richard Burton), who has fooled Smith into thinking that he was also not with Big Brother. O'Brien coldly and cruelly tortures Smith to eventually confess on himself. What horrors does Room 101, deep within the Ministry of Love, hold for Smith and Julia? Will Smith be rehabilitated to O'Brien and Big Brother's satisfaction? 

I have yet to read Orwell's novel, so I cannot say how close or far it strays from the original. I think, however, that those who watch 1984 will get a firm idea of the mad world that Smith lives through. The world of 1984, at least to me, reminded me of what North Korea and Hamas are. Like Oceania, the North Korean dictatorship has tabs on all of its citizen. They have also convinced the North Korean people that they are living in a land of plenty, safe from the horrors outside. Like Hamas, it brooks no dissent and worships endless war.

We also sadly see 1984 reflected in our world. "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words," someone says. I cannot help but think of how terminology is used, misused and abused today. We also have lived through effort to if not change at least focus to other aspects of history. The story of 1984, at least from this film, is still very much a real one.

This sense of dystopian despair is enhanced by the work in front and behind the camera. John Hurt has this great, haunted quality that makes Smith's need for freedom and eventual collapse. Hurt makes Smith into someone who knows something is off but cannot fully free himself. He changes history. He knows he is changing history. He is aware that razor and candy production has not gone up, even if everyone around him truly believes it. 

Hurt is our guide through this world, and he gives an excellent performance. The same goes for Suzanna Hamilton as Julia, the woman who sparks his mind and his body.  

The best performance in 1984 is probably the least expected on. I do not think that Richard Burton was a bad actor. He, however, seemed lost in a fog of self-parody, expecting his shouting to be thought of as great acting. Here, writer/director Michael Radford did something that no director before had managed: get Richard Burton to tone things down. 

Burton had a distinct, rich voice which he used to great effect. At times though, Burton's voice made his performances at times bordering on unhinged. Sometimes he could go so over-the-top that he came across as literally crazed. In 1984, however, he spoke calmly and more surprisingly softly. O'Brien is not a raging, angry man. He is eerily calm. That is what makes him more terrifying. 1984 is wise to keep Burton hidden early on. I think it is close to half an hour into the film before we see even a bit of him, almost 40 minutes before we hear his voice.

In an ironic twist, Burton did so well because he went against what he normally did. This was a very controlled performance. As such, we got to see O'Brien, this soft-mannered monster. Burton did not have to go off to show that he could hold your attention.

1984 is also enhanced by the production elements. The cinematography captured this seemingly empty and dour world with only occasional moments of greenery. The art direction too gets that this is a world coming apart, the population simultaneously lying to itself and being lied to.

Again, I cannot verify how accurate this 1984 adaptation is. However, I think that as a film, 1984 is a strong one. It is visually arresting, with strong performances and a story that is still sadly relevant to how things are today. Julia, I believe, says "It's not so much staying alive as staying human that's important". Those are very true words, perhaps truer than ever. Whatever one's political leanings, it might be wise to take heed of the warnings within 1984. 

DECISION: B+ (8/10) 

Still Alice: A Review

STILL ALICE

Sometimes, you just want to get things over with. This thought came to me after finishing Still Alice, the film for which Julianne Moore won an Academy Award on her fifth nomination. Moore felt overdue for a win, especially given that she is the rare person to receive a Lead and Supporting nomination in the same year (2003). Still Alice is fine, I suppose. That, however, may be the problem. It is fine. It is not good.

Dr. Alice Howland (Moore) is a brilliant linguistics professor at Columbia University. She has just turned fifty and is approaching the zenith of her academic career. Alice is happily married to her husband John (Alec Baldwin) a successful surgeon. She also has three children: Anna (Kate Bosworth), Tom (Hunter Parrish) and Lydia (Kristen Stewart). Lydia is the one causing Alice something of a headache, her acting aspirations at odds with Alice's ideas of success.

One day, Alice struggles through a presentation. She jokingly plays it off as the aftereffects of too much wine. However, other troubling elements start emerging. She gets lost jogging in familiar areas. She forgets more words. She confuses her daughter for her sister. What is the matter with Alice?

It is not a brain tumor, as she initially suspects. It is early-onset Alzheimer's disease. Alice takes the news surprisingly well, showing no emotion to the diagnosis. She also starts slipping further into the disease. She greets a guest twice, unaware that they have met at the most a half-hour prior. She forgets dinner dates and meetings. She gets lost more often. Alice will not let the disease defeat her, though it does inevitably cost her the loss of her job.

She starts speaking publicly about her diagnosis, requiring a marker to note what she has previously said. It is time for the Howland family to make tough decision. Will John decline an offer from the Mayo Institute to keep Alice in familiar territory? Will Alice and Lydia reconcile their differences? Will Lydia put aside her own acting dreams to care for her mother? Will Alice make a difficult choice about her life if she finds that she can no longer care for herself?

I imagine that Alzheimer's disease is an extremely difficult diagnosis, not just for the person afflicted but also for that person's family. It is painful to see someone fade out into a shadow world, unable to help your loved one in any way. It is painful too to know that you are doomed to fade out yourself, condemned to losing your very identity and ability to function. Each person handles these things differently: denial, anger, sadness. 

What did surprise me about Still Alice is an emotion that I did not expect: dispassion. I suppose that I can give co-directors/writers Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland credit. They opted to not make Still Alice into a sensational or overly sentimental adaptation of Lisa Genova's novel. They did not give the actors big moments of emotional outbursts or histrionics. Instead, I think that they went the opposite way and made the whole thing rather cold and remote. 

It is one thing to be eerily calm when you are given an Alzheimer's diagnosis. It is, I find, quite another to be almost disengaged when you are told that it might be a brain tumor. Alice as played by Moore at times never seemed to display any emotion. I found this surprising given that the character was, I presume, meant to be seen as intellectual and strong. 

I can concede that perhaps that was how Alice Howland was supposed to be: disengaged, remote, dispassionate about her declining health. However, I found her too remote, removed and almost inhuman. To be fair, she did display a little prickliness when dealing with her doctor. That prickliness seemed more for his own calm manner than from any struggle she had.

I cannot shake the idea that Still Alice was going to get Julianne Moore her long-awaited Oscar no matter how good or bad her performance was. Do I think that it was a bad performance? No, but I did find it very "actory". To me, that means calculated, methodical, planned out. Her performance was professional but distant. I never saw the character of Alice Howland. I saw Julianne Moore.

There were times when I thought that Alice was using Alzheimer's as an excuse to get out of things like dinners that she was not keen on. It is strange that what I figure was meant as an emotionally devasting scene where she cries because she can't find the restroom, I thought that it was veering towards parody. 

Her insistence on continuing to try and teach despite her growing inability to do so did not come across as courageous. It came across as arrogant. For someone who is meant to be highly intelligent, she came across as stupid in not seeing that her class was a muddle. 

The rest of the cast save one made Still Alice, well, still in their actions. I found very little emotion in every actor except Kristen Stewart. Again, I was not looking for big moments where people throw things and go into shouting tirades. I was also not expecting the exact opposite: no emotion, no reaction to what I figure would be a difficult thing to live through. 

Stewart, as noted, was the exception. That, however, is not a good thing. She played a struggling actress. I saw an actress struggling. I have never thought that Kristen Stewart is a good actress. Still Alice did not convince me to change my mind.

One of Still Alice's greatest flaws is Ilan Eshkeri's score, which was syrupy and getting on my nerves. Perhaps Eshkeri's score was meant to make up for the lack of emotion that the characters had. That's as good a guess as to why I found it unbearable to listen to.

None of this is to say that the attention that Still Alice brings to Alzheimer's disease is not a good thing. Alice in her speech to an Alzheimer's Association group tells them, "I am not suffering. I am struggling", which is a good way of phrasing things. However, I still would have liked to have seen there be any emotion, even overdone ones, to none at all.

Still Alice, I think, will be remembered for being the film that finally got the talented Julianne Moore an Oscar. It should be noted that Moore has not received an Oscar nomination since Still Alice as of this writing. That makes me think that the Academy figured that they got that over with and could move on. Still Alice is not terrible. It is fine. It also could have been more.

DECISION: C- (4/10)