7 Days in May | Atomic Blonde and Robert Mitchum

Atomic Blonde (2017)



Great spy story with a super cool agent. I like that it's set in the Cold War and I love the heavy use of '80s New Wave music. I even like how the song choices fit with what's going on onscreen ('Til Tuesday's "Voices Carry," for instance, when two characters are trying not to be overheard), but I understand how that might be annoying for some.

The plot is complicated, with a lot of double- and triple-crossing to keep track of, but while I was often kept guessing, I was never confused. And it all tracked for me in the end. Looking back after all the reveals have been made, I have some questions about why certain characters did what they did, but I'm not calling that a flaw until I've been able to see it again with the knowledge of what everyone's up to.

The selling point is the action sequences. There are a few big fights and they're all staged differently and even have different tones from each other. One is a brutal, very prolonged fight in a stairwell, for example, while another in a posh hotel is slow motion and operatic.

The Magnificent Seven (2016)

Continuing to rewatch some of my favorite movies from 2016. This was my third or fourth time watching The Magnificent Seven and I like it more each time. I already thought it was a fun movie the first time, but some things that bugged me then don't bother me anymore. It's not that there aren't flaws, it's just that the things that I like - certain characters, set pieces, and the way the villain gets his comeuppance, as examples - smother out the nitpicks that I originally had. It's still not as good as the original, but it doesn't have to be.

Doctor Strange (2016)

One of these days I'm going to need to comprehensively rank the Marvel movies, but I suspect that this will be in the upper part of the middle tier. I enjoy it a lot, appreciate its inventiveness about what spells look like, and like that it opens up a corner of the MCU that hasn't been explored before. I also like how Strange defeats the villain and what that says about him as a character. It's all cool stuff done in a new way.

But even though it's done in a new way, the story that it's telling doesn't feel new enough for me to totally fall in love with the movie. It's essentially Tony Stark's character arc again. And as much as I love Cumberbatch and love him in this role, that sameness keeps me from putting Doctor Strange with very favorite Marvel films.

Moana (2016)

Not just my favorite movie of last year; it's headed towards being one of my favorite movies of all time. There's more to unpack than I want to put in this post, but the short version is that it doesn't just push the nautical/island adventure and awesome female character buttons for me. There's serious, spiritual depth to this movie and a great discussion to be had about mission and identity and how those things are connected. Need to come back to this at some point.

The Ice Pirates (1984)

I've wanted to see The Ice Pirates since 1984. I missed it in the theater and somehow never got around to watching it later, but I've always been a big fan of Robert Urich and of course space opera and pirates, so how could I not enjoy it?

Little did I know.

Maybe I just wasn't in the mood, but as much fun as the cast is (had no idea Angelica Huston and Ron Perlman were in it), it's much sillier than I expected and I didn't actually like any of the characters. Urich is playing the scum bucket that everyone thinks Han Solo is, but without the heart of gold. At least, no heart of gold had been hinted at by the time I gave up and turned this off.

Lady Jane (1986)

So next week, Diane and David and I are taking off for a couple of weeks to go see Britain. It's been a lifelong wish of mine to go see the home of so many of my childhood heroes: Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, Ebenezer Scrooge, Tarzan, James Bond, the Loch Ness Monster... it's a long list.

That means that I won't be updating this blog during that time and there might not be any podcasts with me on them either. If you're with me on Facebook though, I'll be posting there as much as possible, but otherwise, I'll pick up here when we get back.

It also means that we're watching some movies to prep for the trip. Lady Jane has been a favorite of mine since I fell in love with Helena Bonham Carter in the mid-'80s, but it's a downer and I knew David wouldn't love it, so I haven't shared it with him before. We're going to go see the Tower of London, though, and Lady Jane is largely set there and covers an important event that took place there. I figured it would be a good touchstone to have for our visit.

True enough, David wasn't thrilled, though I think he appreciated what he was supposed to about the story. I don't agree with every decision that Jane Grey and her husband make, but I'm not supposed to. They're kids and they make a lot of immature decisions. But I love their passion and I love the questions that the movie raises about how far we're willing to go for things that we believe are important. It kind of goes back to the themes of mission and identity from Moana and I love thinking about that stuff.

When Strangers Marry (1944)

I love me some Robert Mitchum and this has a bunch of other cool people, too. I see Dean Jagger get weepy every year in White Christmas, Kim Hunter went on to play Zira in the Planet of the Apes movies, and Neil Hamilton of course is Commissioner Gordon in the Adam West Batman series. And it's directed by William Castle (House on Haunted Hill, 13 Ghosts).

When Strangers Marry is a good thriller in which Hunter marries a guy (Jagger) she's only known a short time. The cops (led by Hamilton) want to bring Jagger in for questioning about a murder in the last town Jagger was in, but he's doing his best to stay off the grid. Hunter starts to wonder what she's gotten herself into and whether she shouldn't have married her childhood sweetheart (Mitchum) who's recently re-entered her life, instead.

Like I said, it's a good thriller, but it's not great. I was able to predict the outcome, but the bigger problem is that I never for a second believed that anyone would choose to marry Jagger over Mitchum.

Crossfire (1947)



Another early Robert Mitchum movie. I liked this one better though. It's a psychological thriller disguised as a murder mystery. From the start, there are really only a couple of options for who the killer might be, so the real mystery is about the potential motives of the primary suspects. Both are recently discharged soldiers, but one's a hateful bigot and the other is a sweet, but stressed out kid who may not be responsible for all of his actions. Robert Young is the main cop on the case, with Mitchum playing an officer who knows both suspects and wants to prove the kid's innocence.

There's no surprise as to who the killer really is, but that's okay. As the poster's tagline suggests, the movie's more concerned about hate and bigotry. It's heavy handed about delivering that message, but it's also great at humanizing the murder victim and driving home the tragedy of the crime. And sometimes - especially recently - heavy handedness in preaching against hate is exactly what we need.

The Paradine Case (1947)

I'm a big fan of Gregory Peck and Alfred Hitchcock, but I couldn't finish The Paradine Case. Peck plays a married lawyer who falls in love with the woman (Alida Valli) he's defending for murder. The movie hinges on selling the Peck-Valli romance, but that's exactly where it falls apart. Valli is supposed to glamorously mysterious, but she's dull as a mop and there's no reason for Peck to be tempted by her. Especially when his wife (Ann Todd) is utterly charming and far more interesting as a person. The script and performances do no work to transition Peck from happily married to grumpily considering adultery, so when he suddenly and inexplicably started exhibiting feelings for Valli, I was out.

Rio Grande (1950)

The third in John Ford's "Cavalry Trilogy." I accidentally skipped the second, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, because I forgot that Rio Grande was part of it. There are way too many Westerns named after rivers, ya'll.

This is a bona fide sequel to Fort Apache. It doesn't reference any of those events - and I'm not even 100% sure that the timeline works out - but John Wayne is playing the same character in both movies. I like how different the two films are, though.

Fort Apache is about authority and the military structure and what happens when good people are given bad orders. Rio Grande is a more personal movie. Some of Fort Apache's themes show up here, too, because Wayne's character once had to carry out a difficult order that directly affected his relationship with his wife (Maureen O'Hara). But Rio Grande is mostly about that relationship, with both characters trying to decide if they want to repair it. Complicating the situation is that their son has enlisted in the army and been assigned to Wayne's command. O'Hara of course wants the boy out, but Wayne's feelings on it aren't so simple.

It's a lovely story of guilt and repentance and the possibility of forgiveness, which doesn't just play out in the family of main characters. There's also a soldier who's wanted for manslaughter, so when the US Marshal shows up to bring him in, the film adds justice to the mix of themes. What role, if any, should the government play in forgiving crimes? Pretty great stuff.

Winchester '73 (1950)

I'm not typically into movies that follow props around. Most of the time they're thinly disguised anthologies and I'm just not crazy about anthologies. But that's not Winchester '73. The characters who come into contact with the rifle are already connected in other ways and none of them leave the story completely unless they die. It's really about Jimmy Stewart's trying to get the rifle, but more importantly - and for reasons unrelated to the rifle itself - get his hands on the guy who stole it. The other characters are clever diversions who weave in and out of that main plot, but all of them are worth the time the movie spends on them.

Song of the Week: "Electric Love" by BØRNS

No one reads this far down, do they?

7 Days in May | Robert Langdon and Señorita Scorpion

The Da Vinci Code (2006)



I never got around to seeing the new Dan Brown/Robert Langdon movie last fall, so I decided to do that and introduce David to the whole series at the same time. I'm not a huge fan of these, but I do like puzzles and scavenger hunt stories in general, so my base-level interest in these is always going to be enough to get me to look.

The reason I'm not a huge fan is that the Langdon series takes itself so extremely seriously. If I'm going to watch a grown person run around solving puzzles, I prefer the lighter-hearted approach of the National Treasure movies. The Langdon movies have fun plots, but they compete with the joylessness of their hero. I like Robert Langdon - he's a kind person who wants to help whenever he's asked, regardless of what it will cost him - but I don't enjoy him.

Da Vinci Code is my least favorite of the series. I like that the stakes are personal in it, but the plot is all over the place. It's driven by Langdon's being hunted and trying to prove his own innocence, so there's not a lot to contain it. He and his story are able to meander and it's difficult to keep track of how the various clues he's chasing connect to each other. If they even all do.

Angels & Demons (2009)



This is my favorite in the series. I still don't love it, but the narrative is straightforward with a single, clear objective and smaller objectives along the way that are clear about how they fit into the larger one. It also has a ticking clock element that I like. Most of all though, this one makes the most sense as to why there's a scavenger hunt in the first place. In Da Vinci Code and Inferno, there's not a great reason for anyone to have created the elaborate trail of clues. In Angels & Demons, I understand the thinking that went into them.

Inferno (2016)



Like Angels & Demons, there's a straightforward objective and a ticking clock element to Inferno, but those don't do as good a job at keeping the story on track. There's no real reason for the scavenger hunt to exist in the first place and the movie over-complicates itself by questioning everyone's motives. It's trying to introduce paranoia to the adventure, but even while it's doing that it hangs big surprises on the assumption that viewers have unquestioningly trusted some things. I don't think you can have it both ways.

For all that, I still like the movie. That's hugely thanks to Irrfan Khan as the head of a mysterious organization whose objectives I won't spoil. He injects humor and charm into what normally would have been a generic villain. I also very much enjoyed Sidse Babett Knudsen (the Westworld TV series) as the chief representative of the World Health Organization on the case. Her character is a suspect, so I don't want to specify the spoilery things I liked about her, but she made me believe in her (even while I don't believe how her story wraps up).

Chimes at Midnight (1965)



Having watched the Hollow Crown adaptation of Shakespeare's Henriad, I also wanted to check out Orson Welles' condensed version. I love Welles both as a filmmaker and an actor and this reminded me of why. Chimes at Midnight tells the story primarily from Falstaff's point of view with some other scenes included for context. Welles brings the right mix of humor and sadness to the part, making me feel sorry for him while simultaneously feeling like he's getting exactly what he's earned.

There's a thesis paper to be written about how Welles sets up shots in this thing, but the movie rewards even a superficial look with beautiful, fascinating compositions and gorgeous black-and-white cinematography. Chimes of Midnight is no substitute for the full plays, but it's a great companion piece to them.

Zorro (1957-61)



I started Season 2 of Disney's Zorro and it may be wearing on me a little. I'm still enjoying it, but I'm also aware that I'm pushing through it. If I took a break now, I don't know when I'd get back to it.

Some of what's dampening my enthusiasm is a major change in location. Instead of taking place in Los Angeles, the action's been moved to Monterey where a patriotic trader is trying to gather money for a massive supply shipment. Spain is at war, so the Spanish citizens of California see it as their duty to support their homeland by keeping up business. The trouble is that shipments of investment capital from all over California are being intercepted by bandits, so Don Diego has traveled to Monterey to oversee delivery of the money from LA. Four episodes in and he's still there.

He's accompanied by Bernardo and has also been joined by Sgt Garcia and Cpl Reyes, so the best characters from the first season are still there. But I'm hoping that this storyline wraps up quickly and everyone returns to LA. The locations were such an important part of Season One that I'm not ready to let them go.

One really cool thing though is that Lee Van Cleef plays one of the bandits in the first episode. That's him fighting Zorro in the image above.

The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles (1992-93)



Indy has finally gone to war in the two episodes I watched this week. In the first, he's already been embroiled in trench warfare for a few months and there's dissension in the ranks. All of the officers in his unit have been killed and Indy suspects one of the men of murder. Indy's already showing some leadership skills though and has become the unofficial leader of the group until they're reassigned to serve temporarily under French command. Most of the episode is about the horrors of trench warfare as the French try to capture a chateau under German control.

The episode ends with Indy's being taken captive with another soldier (Jason Flemyng), which leads into the next about POW camps. The tone moves from All Quiet on the Western Front to The Great Escape and I enjoyed both genres.

Underground (2016-present)



The episode "Minty" from a couple of weeks ago was the one where Underground went from being Really Cool Adventure Show About a Serious Topic to Holy Crap This Is Important and Potentially Life Changing.

As I've mentioned before, one of the enormous strengths of the show is its ability to shift genres as it changes focus from character to character. The entire run time of "Minty" is nothing but Harriet Tubman (Aisha Hinds) talking to a roomful of fellow Abolitionists about her story for an hour. Hinds has been compelling in the role all season, but she carries this entire episode with very few speaking parts from any other characters. It's a great speech and Hinds delivers it masterfully. There's humor, horror, and hope all wrapped into it, but most importantly there are Ideas.

One of the subplots of the show has been about the proper response of Abolitionists to slavery. Some are content to quietly rebel by assisting on the Underground Railroad. Others see the conflict as all out war and want to act accordingly. So far, Jessica De Gouw's Elizabeth has been the character to most struggle with this, but in "Minty" we learn that Tubman has been wrestling, too, and has come to a decision.

I'm a huge pacifist, but that speech stirred me up and made me rethink my posture towards war. Knowing that the metaphorical war that the Abolitionists are talking about will ultimately lead to very literal war, I think about where my country would be right now if people had just kept quietly rebelling and the Civil War never happened. I'm not ready to pick up arms and I don't believe that Underground is suggesting that we do (though it is very pointed in drawing comparisons between the time of the show and today). What it's extremely successful at though is making me want to take some kind of action. And those who know me best know how difficult a thing that is to accomplish.

"The Brand of Señorita Scorpion" by Lee Savage, Jr.



Read another Señorita Scorpion story from a collection I picked up last year. I was looking forward to more adventures of the female Western hero, especially since the first story was mostly told from the perspective of a male character who falls in love with the mysterious heroine. Sadly, that's also the case here. The Señorita doesn't even get mentioned by her cool name; she's just a damsel in distress for the love-struck cowboy to rescue. It's an exciting enough tale, but not what I wanted.

There are two more in the collection, so I'll keep going, but I'm predicting that I don't pick up the second volume.

Jam of the Week: "Foot of the Mountain" by a-ha

It always irritates me when people refer to a-ha as a one-hit wonder. Forgetting for a second the moderate success that their second album had in the US, the dudes had a freaking James Bond theme song. They're not just "Take On Me."

Still, I understand why a lot of folks are surprised that the band had a long and successful (if sporadic) career after the '80s. This is one of my favorites of their recent stuff, which is as good if not better than their earlier hits. It's eight years old (geez, how time does fly), but there was another album in 2015 with yet another (of live, acoustic versions of their songs) rumored for later this year.

7 Days in May | Blood Father and La Belle et la Bete

Blood Father (2016)



Look, I wanna be mad at Mel Gibson and I am. But just like I'm mad at Tom Cruise and still go to his movies, I love Gibson's acting and I'm usually curious about what he's doing. Blood Father looked like a callback to what Gibson does best: playing unhinged heroes with a lot to lose.

In this case, he's an alcoholic ex-con with a lot to apologize for who's too far beyond redemption, but would settle for some peace in his later years. That goes out the window though when his estranged daughter calls him out of the blue in desperate need of money and help. When he offers it, he's pulled into a nasty situation with violent consequences.

I like that Gibson's character is drawn back into the criminal world, but he doesn't just settle in like he's always been there. He's old and weary and every step of the way it's clear that he's making sacrifices for his daughter. As the title gives away, it's a movie about parenthood that uses violence and crime to accentuate the extreme love that Gibson's character feels for his daughter. I liked it a lot.

La Belle et la Bete (2014)



I didn't make it to the theater last week and even if I had, the live action remake of Disney's Beauty and the Beast is more a curiosity than a must-see. But I've had this French version on my To Watch list for a while and by sheer coincidence it made it to the top just as the new one's coming out.

I've talked before about what I really like in this story, so any new interpretation has my attention, but I also totally dig Léa Seydoux (Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, SPECTRE) and was attracted to the idea of seeing a French version of this French fairy tale. Also, the visuals are lush and imaginative.

It is an imaginative take on the story, but I was disappointed by the quality of the CG effects that are never quite believable. Some of the story changes are good (I love the explanation for why and how the Beast got to be the way he is), but others just seem like excuses for some over the top effects (that again, aren't that spectacular anyway). It's a worthwhile version of the story, but unfortunately not going to become a favorite one for me.

The Wild Life (2016)



Absolutely miserable. Didn't even finish it. I was warned, but you know what? "Nice job" to whoever put together that trailer. You got me. The trailer has fun music and cuts clips together in a way that looks like actual humor. The movie does none of that. It's dumbed down to five-year-olds and reminded me of an amateur Sunday School puppet show. Glad this was a Netflix DVD and not something I paid money to watch.

Henry V (1989)



I kind of gave up blogging about my British History in Film project. I'd like to get back to that. But I haven't given up actually watching the movies. I left off blogging about Edward II, but since then I've watched the mini-series World Without End (2012) that deals with fallout from the events of Edward II (as well as the Black Plague) and started The Hollow Crown, another TV series from 2012.

The Hollow Crown is a great idea. It presents Shakespeare's Henriad tetralogy as a complete story, using as many of the same actors from play to play as possible. Ben Whishaw (Q in the current Bond films) plays the tragic Richard II who's usurped by Rory Kinnear's (Tanner in the Bond movies) Henry IV. Jeremy Irons plays the aged Henry in Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2 with Tom Hiddleston as his son, the questionable Price Hal. At first, I wasn't sure how Richard II fit thematically with the other plays (other than just showing Henry IV's rise to power), but then Shakespeare helped me out with a line of dialogue explaining that IV is so worried about Hal because he sees in Hal the same traits that made IV want to take Richard's crown in the first place. It's a powerful story about fathers and sons, but also about duty and responsibility.

Before I watch the Hollow Crown version of Henry V, I wanted to revisit Kenneth Branagh's version, which made me realize nearly 30 years ago(!) that I actually could enjoy Shakespeare's history plays as much as I did Hamlet and A Midsummer Night's Dream. I've seen it countless times, but not recently, so it was great to see it again and especially fun to rewatch it now with all the backstory of the earlier plays finally in my mind. Branagh includes some scenes from those plays in Henry V as flashbacks and it was also cool when I watched those plays to recognize where I was for a moment.

Branagh's Henry V is still powerful and funny (so funny) and I'd forgotten how stirring Simon Rattle's score is. I used to have the soundtrack somewhere and need to find it again or rebuy it.

Anyway, looking forward to seeing how The Hollow Crown interprets it now.

Zorro (1957-61)



I'm on a huge Zorro kick lately and it's because of this show. I'm about halfway through the 39-episode first season and it is so awesome. Guy Williams is the definition of swashbuckling and perfectly plays the balance between dashing Zorro and passive Don Diego. Gene Sheldon is also delightful as Diego's mute manservant Bernardo and Henry Calvin is a joy as the good-hearted, but wrong-sided Sgt. Garcia.

I expected most of that, having watched an episode or two as a kid, but what I'd totally forgotten was the amazing sets and matte paintings. Disney threw some real money at this and created a wonderful fantasy landscape for southern California with all kinds of great cliffs and passes and skull-shaped mountains.

And I had no idea that the storytelling was so 21st Century. Each episode is more or less self-contained, but they also connect and build on each other to tell longer stories. The first 13 episodes pit Zorro against the ruthless Captain Monastario and I was shocked when he actually succeeded and that storyline ended. Then, just as Zorro's thinking of retiring, a new enemy shows up in the form of a secret society that uses eagle feathers to communicate. I'm in the middle of that story now and loving every minute of it.

It's got me wanting more Zorro, so I've been reading The Curse of Capistrano, the original Zorro story by Johnston McCulley that was serialized in All-Story Weekly. I'll report more on that later, but I'm very much enjoying it so far, too. It's briskly written and I'm surprised to be over halfway through without seeing one mention that Don Diego and Zorro are the same person. Once I finish that, I'll make a project of rewatching my favorite Zorro movies.

The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles (1992-93)



This year is the 25th anniversary of Young Indiana Jones, so I decided I should probably finally watch the whole thing. I was a fan back in the day, but its sporadic schedule made me miss a bunch of episodes and I finally just gave up.

The DVD collection (which is what's on Amazon Prime for me to watch) has Special Editioned them, but I don't really mind. They've taken out the framing sequences with the 90-year-old Indy and I'm kind of sad that those aren't available for me to watch if I want to, but I also didn't especially like them. And I do really like that the episodes are reorganized into chronological order instead of jumping around between 10-year-old and teenaged Indy.

David asked me if I recommend the show and I don't know that I do. Not unconditionally anyway. I'm enjoying it, but it's very different from the adventures of Harrison Ford. Each episode has its small mystery or adventure, but the focus is mostly on introducing a new place or historical figure. It's entertainingly educational; it's just not thrilling in the way that Indiana Jones is known for.

I'm partway into the 10-year-old's travels with his parents and governess as they follow Henry Sr on a lecture tour. We've been to three different parts of Africa, and a few places in Europe (Paris, Vienna, and Florence, so far). Highlights include Lukas Haas as Norman Rockwell, Danny Webb (Henry V) as Picasso, and Max Von Sydow as Freud.

Underground (2016-present)



Finally, I'm about halfway through the first season of Underground and am loving the show. It starts off as sort of a disturbing, Southern version of Downton Abbey. It never focuses long on the owners of the Macon plantation (which is good, because they're horrible), but there's instead a stark contrast between the lives of the house slaves and the field slaves. Neither group is well off, but they have different challenges that are fascinating to learn and think about.

Mixed into that story is another one about John Hawkes, the brother of the plantation's owner Tom. Both brothers are from the north, but where Tom has become a slave owner, John very strongly believes in abolition. So he and his wife Elizabeth consider becoming a part of the Underground Railroad and have to weigh the costs of participating in an illegal, but morally right endeavor.

Very quickly though, the focus of the show becomes an escape plan by a group of the Macon slaves. It's led by Noah, who's tried to escape once before, but managed to hide the fact even though he was caught. Smart guy and Aldis Hodge is absolutely captivating in the part. The rest of the group comes from a mixture of people hand-picked by Noah for their talents and/or abilities to get things that the group will need. And not all of them have the group's best interests at heart. Once they run, the show takes on a Walking Dead feel with slave hunters standing in for zombies. It's a brilliant show that constantly changes the way it tells its story so I'm always guessing and always intrigued.

Jam of the Week: "Burn the White Flag" by Joseph



As I try and make another go of this "7 Days in May" feature, one of the things I wanna do each week is share a song that's making me happy. This is one of my favorites from last year. It's rowdy, folky, and has hand claps. I'm a total sucker for hand claps.

British History in Film | Edward II (1970)

Braveheart introduced us to Edward II, the weak prince who constantly disappointed his father, Edward Longshanks. Not being super concerned about historical accuracy, it added a couple of weird things to his story. First, it put him in a relationship with someone named Phillip who gets thrown out of a window by the elder Edward. It seems probable that Edward II was at least bisexual, but as far as we know, his dad never murdered any of his boyfriends.

An even stranger change though is how the movie more than implies that the first son of Edward II is actually the child of William Wallace. Learning that is a nice bit of comeuppance for Longshanks on his deathbed, but it's also a fantasy. In real life, Edward II's wife Princess Isabelle was about four years old when Wallace was fighting the English. Edward II would have been about 15.

But Braveheart does depict Edward's fondness for men, which leads nicely into Christopher Marlowe's play, Edward II. My first exposure to the play was Derek Jarman's 1991 film adaptation, but that was a challenging introduction. Jarman set the film in modern day, but includes lots of medieval props for reasons that 1991 me couldn't decipher. He also makes significant changes in order to turn the play's gay subtext into the main point. It's a fascinating take, but not the best way to be introduced to the story for those who don't already know it.

A better initiation is the Prospect Theatre Company's 1970 version starring very young Ian McKellen as the title character. It's a bare-boned production, but it's set in the proper time period and is a faithful presentation of the play. And of course McKellen makes it extremely watchable.

It's difficult to follow, though. Marlowe's play already condenses a ton of history into a rapid-fire sequence of events and the production's lack of set dressing makes it even more confusing. There aren't enough clues to help understand the passage of time or even a change of location. Fortunately, the actors help make it possible to follow the action. McKellen isn't the only one in the production who's worth watching. The cast is all very good and everyone keeps the dialogue understandable.

One of the most interesting characters - especially after watching Braveheart - is Queen Isabella. It's fascinating to think about Sophie Marceau's long-suffering version while watching Diane Fletcher in the Prospect version. Isabella begins the play more or less patiently enduring Edward and his obvious love for someone else, but she becomes less tolerant as time goes by. Ultimately, she takes a lover of her own and allies with him to overthrow and murder Edward.

At least, that's what she tries to do. The Prospect production of Marlowe's play makes it clear that Isabella succeeded, but Jarman's 1991 film goes a different direction. As does the mini-series, World Without End, based on Ken Follett's sequel to his novel Pillars of the Earth. But that's for our next post.

British History in Film | Braveheart (1995)

In The Black Rose, Edward I (aka Longshanks) is portrayed as a reasonable and even compassionate man who wants to unite his broken country. That takes the form of trying to settle an anachronistic conflict between Normans and Saxons as well as some vague talk of stopping oppression in general. It's quite easy to like that Edward.

The Edward Longshanks in Braveheart is very different. He's also trying to unite the people of his island, but by ruthlessly taking them over. The truth is somewhere in the middle with the historical Edward making significant contributions to English law, but also squashing rebellions and trying to conquer Wales and Scotland. Braveheart focuses on the latter conflict, of course.

I like Braveheart a lot, but I don't always feel like I should. I don't think it's a problem with Mel Gibson, whom I always like on screen even if I have problems with him personally. My issue with the movie is that I feel manipulated by it. Between the speeches and the music and the super generic theme of Freedom, I can see exactly what the movie is doing to make me feel the way it wants me to feel. The thing is that it works and I usually do feel the way it wants me to. But I can also see the strings that it's pulling and that creates some dissonance for me.

It ultimately wins me over in spite of that, though. If all it had going for it was speeches and music and Freedom, I probably wouldn't like it, but it also has humor and - for me - more personal themes about loyalty and leadership. Those are things that connect with me about Braveheart.

But I still like Rob Roy better.

Next time: We met Edward's undependable son in Braveheart and lucky for us, someone wrote a play about him.

British History in Film | The Black Rose (1950)

I couldn't find any movies about King John's son, Henry III, so I skipped ahead to his grandson, Edward. He was a tall dude for his time, so he's best known by his nickname, Edward Longshanks. The Black Rose doesn't focus on him, but he does play an important role in the story.

The movie plays up the Norman-Saxon conflict in a way that's probably not historically accurate. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the dust had settled on that long before Edward's time. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there were lingering feelings of resentment among some folks, but The Black Rose has it as an official system of oppression with the Saxons ready to rebel against their Norman overlords.

The main character is Tyrone Power's Walter of Gurnie, the bastard son of a deceased Saxon who was married to a Norman woman. There's a lot of stuff early in the movie that's meant to show how unfair the system is to poor Walter, but that's all prologue to the real adventure in which Walter and his friend Tristam get fed up and leave England to seek their fortunes in China. There they meet a Mongol warlord played by Orson Welles and get involved in a plot to rescue a young woman (nicknamed The Black Rose) from a harem under the warlord's protection.

The movie is overly long, but the big problem with it is that I don't like Walter. With all that oppression being heaped on him, it shouldn't be hard to make him sympathetic, but he comes off as entitled and a baby about the whole thing. Tristam is pretty great though. He's an archer of Robin Hood-like skill who accompanies Walter more out of love for his friend than for any personal grudge against England. I also really like Welles' crafty warlord who has a great balance of ruthlessness and amiability.

One of the ways that Walter is oppressed in the early part of the story is that his father's will put Walter into the service of the Norman King Edward (played by Michael Rennie from The Day the Earth Stood Still). The Black Rose's Edward is a reasonable fellow who's primary goal is to unite his kingdom. In the movie that means putting a stop to oppression and trying to resolve the whole Norman-Saxon feud, so he ultimately rewards Walter for his adventures and comes off as a really nice guy.

Next week though, we'll look at a very different interpretation of Edward Longshanks, who's still concerned about uniting the kingdom, but in a much less benevolent way.

British History in Film | King John (1984)

Shakespeare's King John isn't one of his most popular plays, but I've always been interested in seeing it as a sort of sequel to the Robin Hood legend. There aren't too many versions available for home viewing, but the 1984 BBC production directed by David Giles and starring Leonard Rossiter is a fine production.

I'm no Shakespeare scholar - or even a super knowledgeable fan - but I wonder about why King John isn't more widely regarded. It has some great speeches and iconic scenes and Giles' version is especially well-performed. Rossiter is fantastic as the selfish, sometimes cowardly John, but George Costigand steals the show as the king's intelligent and humorous bastard nephew, son of the late King Richard. There's also some great casting for a couple of English noblemen, starting with Robert Brown, who was M in the '80s Bond movies.

John Castle is another cool actor who plays a noble. I wouldn't have known him before this project, but he was King John's brother Geoffrey in The Lion in Winter. Geoffrey's dead by the time King John takes place, but his presence is still very much felt. In Lion in Winter, Geoffrey's claim to the throne wasn't supported by either of his parents, but he did have the new king of France (played then by young Timothy Dalton) as an ally. In King John, King Philip is much older, but still supports Geoffrey's family. In fact, the play's drama is kicked off by Philip's insistence that Geoffrey's son is the rightful ruler of England.

There are some speeches that go long in the middle, but I'll sit through those for lopped-off heads and people falling off of castle walls. Sadly, I couldn't find a movie about John's son, Henry III, so next time we'll skip ahead to grandson Edward.

British History in Film | Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) and Robin Hood (2010)

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)



This one gets laughed at quite a bit, but I love it, even with its American Robin Hood. That has a lot to do with Alan Rickman, of course, though his Sheriff crosses from merely ambitiously evil into some truly creepy and despicable territory. That's the script and not Rickman's performance, but it does keep me from wholeheartedly enjoying that character.

I also love Michael Kamen's score and even the cheesy Brian Adams song, "(Everything I Do) I Do It For You." It's the one Brian Adams song I've ever liked, but I like it without reservation. Probably because of it's association with this movie.

On top of all that are some great set pieces. There's plenty not to like, too, but over all it's the big budget, spectacular Robin Hood that I wanted and it still holds up.

Robin Hood (2010)



It's barely a Robin Hood movie, but I still enjoy it as simply a medieval adventure. Ridley Scott is always visually exciting and I'm a huge fan of most of the cast from Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett to Max von Sydow, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac, Mark Addy, Matthew Macfadyen, Kevin Durand, and Léa Seydoux. I even really like William Hurt in it and that's not something I can usually say about his movies. Also, the music is great, thanks to musician/actor (and appropriately named) Alan Doyle as the minstrel Allan A'Dayle.

Something interesting that Scott's movie does is place the action after the death of King Richard. Prince John is now King John, but no less spoiled and oppressive. Next week, we'll check in on him again during his later reign via Shakespeare.

British History in Film | The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and Robin Hood (1973)

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)



A wonderful spectacle that includes most of my favorite Robin Hood stories in a single film. And what Errol Flynn lacks in Douglas Fairbanks' sheer acrobatic ability, he makes up in swordsmanship and charm. It's tough for me to pick a favorite between the two of them.

Meanwhile, Claude Rains is a memorable Prince John and Basil Rathbone is always a delicious foil for Flynn. I'm not a huge fan of Olivia de Havilland as Marian - not when I have Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio to compare her to - but she's fine and I have no complaints either.

Robin Hood (1973)



Made during a time when Disney was creating animated features on the cheap, but it's no less charming for that. It's not the best Robin Hood, but it will always be my Robin Hood.

British History in Film | Ivanhoe (1952) and Robin Hood (1922)

Ivanhoe (1952)



Last time, we left off with Henry II still king and fighting with his wife about who would take his place. She wanted Richard; he wanted John. If you know nothing else about the history of medieval Britain, you know that Richard won that argument. And you know it because of stories like Ivanhoe and Robin Hood.

I debated which to watch first, but settled on Ivanhoe just to get it out of the way. I love Walter Scott's novel, but the movie doesn't do it justice and weakens the Robin Hood character (which it just calls Locksley). And Robert Taylor's performance as the title character is super stiff. I think he's going for noble, but jeez he's wooden and it's surprising that Elizabeth Taylor and Joan Fontaine both go for him. The women are equally great though. Taylor easily makes me root for her, but Fontaine gives her character plenty of complicated emotions, too. I like them both.

George Sanders is doing what George Sanders does as the villain, but I always like that and De Bois-Guilbert is a tragic variety of his typical cad. The jousting scene and the attack on the castle are both a lot of fun, too. Ivanhoe isn't not one of my favorite medieval swashbucklers, but it still has plenty to recommend it.

Robin Hood (1922)



Now for the good stuff. Douglas Fairbanks' silent version of Robin Hood is an origin story, so Robin Hood as we know him doesn't appear until halfway through the movie. That might sound similar to complaints about the Ridley Scott version, but thanks to Fairbanks' impressive charm and some great humor, even the Hoodless half is a lot of fun.

Once the movie enters familiar territory, it gets even better with lavish sets and Fairbanks proving why he's the king of the swashbucklers. Silent or not, this version sets a high bar for other Robin Hood films. Next week, we'll look at a couple of more and see if they clear it.

British History in Film | Becket and The Lion in Winter

Becket (1964)



The Pillars of the Earth covers the bloody conflict to see who would succeed Henry I as king. His nephew Stephen is in control for most of the mini-series, but it closes with Henry's young grandson, Henry II finally taking the throne. Although the novel apparently goes farther in history and includes the events of Peter Glenville's film, Becket.

Peter O'Toole is the adult Henry II, who's in a conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. This is a recurring theme, since Henry I experienced the same trouble and - according to Pillars of the Earth anyway - it was the Church's attempt to put a friendlier king into power that caused the whole succession crisis in the first place. In Becket, Henry II irritates the Church further by filling England's top clerical position with his childhood buddy, Thomas Becket. Unfortunately for Henry, Becket begins to take his role seriously, instead of just being the puppet that Henry expected.

It's a great film that's lushly directed and superbly acted. It depicts a fascinating relationship between these two, extremely flawed men, one of whom outgrows the other to disastrous consequences. It's really a medieval version of That Was Then, This Is Now, except that it's really good.

The Lion in Winter (1968)



Not a true sequel to Becket, but it sure feels that way with O'Toole reprising his role as an older Henry II. Where Becket was an excellent relationship story though, Lion in Winter is a drawn-out, family melodrama. O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn are Acting, dagnabbit, and they want to make sure you know it. There's an interesting political drama in there somewhere, but it gets lost in the screwed-up relationship of the leads that we're supposed to care about for some reason.

One of the main things they're arguing about is who's going to follow Henry as king. Hepburn's Eleanor of Aquitaine wants eldest son Richard on the throne, but Henry supports youngest boy John. No one cares about middle-child Geoffrey, except for his buddy Philip, the new king of France. (John Gielgud played Philip's dad in Becket.)

Luckily, the sons are all great. Anthony Hopkins is a tough, but deeply troubled Richard. John Castle is delicious as the scheming Geoffrey. And Nigel Terry is perfectly sniveling as young Prince John. Timothy Dalton is also captivating as Philip. Their performances all kept me going even as O'Toole and Hepburn pushed me away.

Next week, you know who wins the throne. Eleanor gets her way, but Richard goes on a crusade that leaves the defense of his kingdom to outlaws.

British History in Film | 1066 and The Pillars of the Earth

I started this British History in Film project that I was just going to write about in the 7 Days in May feature, but it could make a fun feature in itself, so... spin-off! In last week's 7 Days in May, I wrote about King Arthur (2004) and The Vikings (1958). It's kind of appropriate to keep them separate since both are only historical in the loosest possible sense.

With this post, we're kicking off movies that we can actually put some dates to, because they include actual, historical events and people. Not that historical accuracy is going to be a requirement here. This is purely for fun.

1066: The Battle for Middle Earth (2011)

First up is this documentary-style mini-series about the Viking and Norman invasions of Britain that led to the Battle of Hastings. It's pretty good and takes an unusual approach in focusing on the common soldiers rather than their leaders.

As the title suggests, it draws a lot of parallels with Tolkien's novels, staring with its being narrated by Bilbo Baggins himself, Ian Holm. Some of the connections feel unnecessary, like continually calling the Normans "orcs," but others - for instance, the reminder that England's defenders were mostly humble farmers from the shire - have a bigger impact. What the series never does though is actually mention Tolkien or explain why it's making these connections with his books, so it feels a bit pointless and mercenary overall.

The acting is fair and I ended up caring about the characters I was supposed to. The series also makes lovely use of the beautiful forests of England as the setting for these battles. It wasn't quite the narrative style I was looking for, but it ended up being a cool way to experience the story and learn some history.

The Pillars of the Earth (2010)



1066 covered the invasion of England by the Normans from France, led by William the Conqueror. I couldn't find any movies about his son, William II, but his grandson Henry is king when Ken Follett's The Pillars of the Earth kicks off. The mini-series opens with the sinking of the White Ship in 1120, which killed Henry's heir and sent England into a crisis over who was going to succeed.

The conflict around that is the backdrop to another story about the building of a fictional cathedral. The crown and the church and a couple of noble families all struggle for power with the cathedral project often being used as a bargaining chip. I'm gonna call it Game of Thrones Lite, but I don't mean it to be insulting. Pillars is playing in that same arena and is slightly less graphic, but it's also its own thing and totally captivating. My whole family was drawn in by these characters and the drama between them.

It's got a great cast, too, with Ian McShane as a wicked and ambitious clergyman and Matthew Macfadyen as the equally ambitious, but more noble priest trying to get the cathedral built. Rufus Sewell plays the builder in charge of the project and Eddie Redmayne is his apprentice, who also has a secret with important implications to the succession crisis. Donald Sutherland plays a noble who supports the underdog in the dispute, and Hayley Atwell is his daughter, though her role becomes much more important than just that.

I highly recommend the mini-series if you haven't seen it, so I won't spoil it (or 862-year-old history) by saying who wins the crown, but next week we'll pick up with a movie about the reign of that ruler.

7 Days in May | Pee Wee's Big Cloverfield

So here's what I watched last week:

Pee Wee's Big Holiday (2016)

Nothing will ever top Pee Wee's Big Adventure, but Big Holiday is super funny and sweet. Makes me want to re-watch Big Top Pee Wee to see where that one went wrong. I don't remember much about Big Top other than being disappointed, but there's no such problem with Holiday. Although I also doubt I'll watch it over and over again the way I do Adventure.

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

Not the Cloverfield sequel I'd wanted, but an excellent thriller-with-a-twist nonetheless. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a great, relatable hero and John Goodman does an excellent job keeping her and viewers on our toes. John Gallagher Jr is also compelling as the third major character and I had a good time trying to decide whether he or Goodman (or neither of them) was a villain.

The Peanuts Movie (2015)

Probably the last word on these characters, at least as far as I'm concerned. As sweet and funny as any of the classic shows, with a great balance of classic bits and new material. And what's so great about the new stuff is that it moves the kids' story forward and lets them learn something great about themselves. Just lovely and charming.

Top Secret! (1984)

Some of the jokes no longer hold up, but most of them still do and are just as funny after dozens of viewings. The music is also fun, as is the cast with Val Kilmer and Michael Gough (long before Batman Forever), Jim Carter in the complete opposite of his Downton Abbey role, and a cameo by Peter Cushing.



King Arthur (2004)

For the longest time, I've wanted to work my way through British history as portrayed in the movies. I finally started that with King Arthur, so obviously accuracy isn't a factor in this project. It's just that I generally like this movie and it 's one of the few I know of that cover the Roman occupation, the Celts, and the Saxon invasion.

Even though I like King Arthur, the premise does feel cynical. It's basically Braveheart with brand recognition. But even though it's derivative and only nominally an Arthurian film, it's gorgeously shot and has an amazing cast. I never feel like I'm watching a King Arthur movie, but I don't care. As a fictionalized account of Rome's last days in Britain, it's fun and compelling.

The Vikings (1958)

Pretty standard mid-'50s "historical" adventure, but it covers the Saxon period before the Norman invasion, which is rare. It has three things worth mentioning:

1. It's not sure what it wants to do with Kirk Douglas. He's clearly the villain for the entire movie, but I think the film wants to redeem him a little at the end. He never really changes though; he just hesitates at a crucial moment. The movie seems to want me to feel something other than simple victory when he dies, but it does nothing to help me do that.

2. The location of the Viking village is gorgeous. I could look at that place all day. I wish more of the movie was set there.

3. Tony Curtis is absolutely dreamy in a beard.



The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)

Like last week, I'm continuing to work my way through a bunch of silent films. Some of them are new to me, but a lot of them are re-watches like Dr. Caligari. I've grown less satisfied with the twist ending on this one the more I see it, but I never get enough of looking at the movie. Just beautiful.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)

Not my favorite adaptation of the story, but a good one. I wrote plenty about it already.

One Week (1920)

This short is one of my favorite Buster Keaton films of any length. It's got a great concept to build gags around (putting up a prefab house) and makes full use of the opportunities. Sybil Seely is super cute and a great partner for Keaton, bringing her own athleticism and comedy to the team.

The Saphead (1920)

Buster Keaton's first feature-length film is good, but not typical of his stuff. It's a pretty standard romantic comedy most of the way. It makes great use of Keaton's deadpan, sad sack persona to endear me to his clueless, insanely wealthy character. I root for him and Beulah Booker's character to overcome the obstacles to their being together, which are mostly thrown in the way by other people.

As straightforward as most of the movie is, the climax finally gives Keaton the chance to go nuts with his awesome physical comedy, so it's even good on that level. There's just not enough of it to be completely satisfying.

Convict 13 (1920)

One of the things I both admire and am frustrated by in Keaton shorts is the way he leads into the premise. Convict 13 is built around Keaton's being mistakenly imprisoned, with all the gags that take place in that setting. But there's a long explanation for how he got there, featuring golf jokes. The golf jokes are funny and pay off at the end, so I don't dislike them; it's just that - especially on re-watches - I'm impatient to get to the prison stuff that I consider the meat of the film. I've probably been over-influenced by Looney Tunes cartoons that cut to the chase right away.



The Mark of Zorro (1920)

A splendid version of the Zorro story. Douglas Fairbanks isn't as handsome as some of his swashbuckling successors, but he makes up for that with sheer athletic ability and a ton of charm. His stunts in the climax are nothing short of early parkour.

He's also the model for what Christopher Reeve did with Superman/Clark Kent. He makes it believable that no one connects Don Diego with Zorro, because he plays them as two totally separate characters: sheepishly slouching as Diego, while full of life as the hero. I also love the touch of Diego's constantly amusing himself with shadow figures and little handkerchief tricks, then nerdishly trying to share them with the uninterested people around him. Great performance in a great movie.

Neighbors (1920)

Another of Keaton's best. Simple plot (star-crossed lovers in a New York tenement), super funny, and with some amazing stunts.

The Scarecrow (1920)

Like Convict 13, the story takes a while to get going. Before getting to the main plot about Keaton's rivalry with his roommate over a young woman, The Scarecrow indulges in lots of gags about the multi-functional gadgets of Keaton and his pal's one-room house. Then there's a bit about Keaton's being chased by a dog he thinks has rabies (actually it's just eaten a cream pie). But eventually feelings for Sybil Seely's character (so glad to see her return from One Week) reveal themselves and Keaton goes on the run from his roommate and Seely's father. Every bit of it is funny stuff, so I don't mind the meandering plot. It's just not as focused as my most favorite Keaton films.

On to some stuff I've been reading/listening to:



Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by JK Rowling

I discovered Harry Potter through the movies and by the time I did, I decided to discover that world through cinema first and then come back later and pick up the books. I finally read the first one on vacation a few years ago, but never found time to do the rest. Now that the audiobooks are available on Audible, I'm planning to listen to the whole series this year.

Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone is as magical as I remember from the first time reading it. Rowling has a wonderful imagination and a great sense of humor. It's a joy to attend Hogwart's alongside her characters. Some of the mystery-solving relies more heavily on coincidences than I'd like, but that's easy to forgive in a book about and for pre-teens. Especially since the characters' motivations and relationships are already so sophisticated. I'm eager to get on to brand new territory with Chamber of Secrets.

Long John Silver comics by Xavier Dorison and Mathieu Lauffray

This is a series of four comics albums and they're great. The first volume, Lady Vivian Hastings, is gorgeous. And it's an excellent sequel to Treasure Island. Lauffray's artwork is incredibly detailed and immersive. Dorison's plot introduces a fascinating character, Lady Hastings, who is as different from Jim Hawkins as can be. Delightfully wicked, cunning, and courageous, she's a worthy foil for Silver and the perfect person to bring him into a new treasure-seeking venture. And Silver himself is as charmingly crafty as ever. (I went into more detail about this one a couple of years ago.)

A lot of stories set at sea bore me with the same old tales of storms and doldrums and complaining crews, but Neptune, the second installment, avoids that by filling the time with politics and scheming. It's the same tactic that Stevenson used in Treasure Island, but to very different results. Stevenson's adventure story has its moments of darkness, but this is a scarier version with rougher stakes.

In part three, The Emerald Maze, the pirate adventure becomes more psychological thriller and Heart of Darkness. The crew of treasure-seekers heads upriver into the jungle in search of a lost, gold-filled city, and doubts arise in some of them about the wisdom of the venture.

Finally, the whole thing wraps up in Guyanacapac. I always worry about how well these things are going to end, but Dorison and Laufray do a nice job with a conclusion that's both epic and emotionally satisfying. They have pirates fighting Aztecs with shades of Lovecraft looming over it all. They also offer a great read on the character of Long John Silver and what drives him. Great series of books. Highly recommended.