@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 10/03/97 -- Vol. 16, No. 14
MT Chair/Librarian:
Mark Leeper MT 3E-433 732-957-5619 mleeper@lucent.com
HO Chair: John Jetzt MT 2E-530 732-957-5087 jetzt@lucent.com
HO Librarian: Nick Sauer HO 4F-427 732-949-7076 njs@lucent.com
Distinguished Heinlein Apologist:
Rob Mitchell MT 2D-536 732-957-6330 rlmitchell1@lucent.com
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper MT 3E-433 732-957-2070 eleeper@lucent.com
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
The Science Fiction Association of Bergen County meets on the
second Saturday of every month in Upper Saddle River; call
201-933-2724 for details. The New Jersey Science Fiction Society
meets on the third Saturday of every month in Belleville; call
201-432-5965 for details. The Denver Area Science Fiction
Association meets 7:30 PM on the third Saturday of every month at
Southwest State Bank, 1380 S. Federal Blvd.
1. URL of the week: http://www.kinexis.com/movies.html. The Self-
Referential Movies mailing list archive site.
Note: The Poets' Corner site from a few weeks ago seems to have
died. [-ecl]
===================================================================
2. "Children's books can have many purposes, but the most basic one
must be to persuade children of something not immediately self-
evident, which is that there is a world of stimulation and
sensation available through print--that books can carry you out of
yourself. Suspense, horror, and science fiction are among the
simplest ways to demonstrate this, and if some of the preteen
Goosebumps and Animorphs addicts go on to get similarly absorbed in
"The Lord of the Rings" or "A la Recherche du Temps Perdu" those
books will have performed their mission in the world as effectively
as the most enlightened picture book." (Louis Menand, "How to
Frighten Small Children", THE NEW YORKER, Oct 6, 1997)
===================================================================
3. At a recent party I got into a discussion about film. The
discussion was started out about why Hollywood does so badly by
science fiction. This is a perennial panel question at science
fiction conventions. I mean everybody KNOWS that science fiction
books are good and the films are these putrid things in which
monsters cut people up in post-Holocaust worlds that have devolved
into anarchy. And everybody has a favorite science fiction book
like A CANTACLE FOR LEIBOWITZ that is just exquisite. Clearly the
films just do not match up to the books.
Now, I would ask if it is really true. To a large extent we are
comparing apples and oranges. There are reasons why novels are
better than films. You have a long, long time in a novel to
develop ideas in a story. You have a lot of words. In a film you
have to a story in brief enough form that most of the audience will
not need a bathroom break between the start and the finish.
Bathroom breaks are not a problem with novels. Most films really
have the same amount of action as you would have in a forty-page
story, a novelette in the Hugo award definitions. So to be fair,
let's compare movies and novelettes.
But that still is not fair. How many new novelettes are there each
month? There are probably four or five monthly magazines that
publish three or four new novelettes each month. Then there are
original story anthologies. You know, books like ALTERNATE LAWYERS
and ALTERNATE WEATHER CONDITIONS. It is hardly surprising that
with so many novelettes being written and relatively few films
being released to theaters. Of course, there are science fiction
films that just go to cable or directly to cassette. But then
there are a bunch of novelettes that don't get published either.
With so many novelettes being published, you would expect a few of
them to be better than the relatively few films we see. One would
expect the best of the prose stories to be better by sheer numbers
alone. So if you want to level the playing field, you must compare
films to novelettes, and then just count the last five or so of
each you have seen. I would say compare the last five new science
fiction films you have seen in a theater and the last five new
novelettes.
OK, now things are a little more even. Which is better, the
stories or the films. In my case, I have to say I am not really
sure. The last five science fiction films I have seen in a theater
include EVENT HORIZON which was just awful and MIMIC which was
stylish and atmospheric. It had some ideas. Still at this point I
admit probably the written are a little better, perhaps by only a
narrow margin. But then writing a story you have one person at a
word processor. If he thinks he has a way to improve a scene he
just has to type it in. Making a film is a much bigger production.
That is why they call it a "production." Changes to the story are
very expensive. Instead of ten minutes of composition time a new
scene may cost as much as tens of thousands of dollars to insert.
This is a HUGE handicap for the filmmaker. Why isn't there a huge
margin in quality? Why aren't the novelettes A LOT better than the
films? Hollywood is doing better than you would expect by
comparison.
Actually, at this writing the last novelettes I read were Hugo
nominees. I would expect them to be really good. To be absolutely
frank, in my opinion they weren't. This year the Hugo nominees
which are supposed to be the best of the best were a pretty sad
lot. I believe the winner was "Bicycle Repairman" by Bruce
Stirling. I thought it to be a particularly weak Hugo nominee.
There were more ideas of interest in MIMIC. So let me ask how come
written science fiction is not a lot better? [-mrl]
===================================================================
4. I guess this is about all we can expect for film presentations
at the World Science Fiction Convention. Basically what we got to
see was just the same trailers that get shown in theaters. Judging
by the trailer is dangerous, even EVENT HORIZON looked good. Okay,
judging by the trailers alone here are two dozen or so looks at
films coming up. The person giving the presentation was Jeff
Walker, a studio publicist. He would make positive comments about
some films, negative ones about others, but not say a whole lot in
either case. I am not sure how strongly to take his recommendation
or what his loyalties were. He was presenting the output from
multiple studios. SPOILER WARNING: Hey, I only saw trailers so
there cannot be a whole lot I am spoiling here, but I have known
trailers to give away important plot elements.
KULL THE CONQUEROR: Kevin Sorbo who plays Hercules on TV here
plays the title role. He has never looked convincing as Hercules
(What is the bit with him wearing pants?) Somehow I am not
expecting it here either. I never watched more than a few minutes
of Hercules. Here he is playing Robert E. Howard's second most
popular hero. Don't expect CONAN THE BARBARIAN. It looks a bit-
tongue-in cheek for my tastes.
VIRUS: This has got to be one of the most cheating titles of the
year. Americans discover a derelict Russian ship has and alien
life form on board. They have to kill it. According to the
trailer, "the virus is us." Just how they intend to justify that
ridiculous statement I have no idea. Humans do not reproduce like
viruses.
JACKAL: Apparently this is a loose remake of DAY OF THE JACKAL,
Bruce Willis as the Jackal, Richard Gere as some sort of stalker
released from prison to go after the Jackal. I think I would
prefer seeing THE DAY OF THE JACKAL again.
WISHMASTER: This is a horror story based around a genie who tricks
people into dangerous wishes and then grants them. Now my idea for
a horror film is this tooth fairy who leaves venomous snakes and
insects instead of money under the pillow.
TOMORROW NEVER DIES: Pierce Brosnan is just too suave and empty to
be a decent James Bond. I wish they would get Timothy Dalton back.
The trailer shows action scenes and explosions. I hope they
convince John Barry to do the score.
FAIRY TALE: Two children on vacation run into real fairies.
Somehow Arthur Conan Doyle (played by Peter OToole) and Harry
Houdini (Harvey Keitel) become involved investigation. The trailer
just barely showed the two famous people, but I know this is based
on a true incident, though I think most people think that the
original incident was a fraud. Walker recommended this one.
AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN PARIS: This looks to have the special
effects of AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, it just is a similar
story moved to Paris. A teenager saves the life of a woman jumping
off of the Eiffel Tower only to find out she is a werewolf. At
some point he is bitten and himself becomes a werewolf. The
trailer does not make clear why so similar a story had to be done
again, but we shall see.
WASHINGTON SQUARE: It is odd to see Henry James's novel being
adapted by Disney. If the film is accurate to the book it does not
have a Disney ending. Jennifer Jason Leigh stars and is a good
choice for the lead. This is a good story and I hope Disney does
right by it.
ROCKETMAN: Wasn't this idea done with Don Knotts as THE RELUCTANT
ASTRONAUT? What if an astronaut chosen for space flight were
really a klutz? Probably he would be just assigned to the Mir.
PLAYING GOD: David Duchovney plays a doctor who has lost his
license and a criminal, Tim Hutton, who forces him to use his
skill. Hard to say, but this certainly does not look like a
standout film.
THE LITTLE MERMAID: Disney obviously intends to keep releasing it
in spite of the fact it is available on cassette.
FLUBBER: Yet a third version of THE ABSENT-MINDED PROFESSOR from
Disney. This time the title substance dances around on its own.
What nitwit thought that made the story better?
ANASTASIA: Don Bluth these days is doing animation for Fox. This
appears be the same story that was made in a film starring Ingrid
Bergman and Yul Brenner into a musical comedy. That is a fairly
serious and heavy story. Next someone will turn THE HUNCHBACK OF
NOTRE DAME into an animated musical. Incidentally, the mystery has
recently been solved with the only answer it could have ever had.
Anastasia died with her family. DNA tests prove which bones were
hers.
GREAT EXPECTATIONS: This is a version of the Dickens story updated
and moved to the present. Ethan Hawke, Gwynneth Paltrow, Ann
Bancroft, and Robert DeNiro star. Hard to bring that down to the
level most modern audiences would like.
ALIENS: THE RESURRECTION: The only positive sign about this film
is that it is directed by the director of CITY OF LOST CHILDREN.
Ripley has been dead for two hundred years, but people want to
recreate aliens and so clone her to bring her back to life. But
will she be on the side of the humans or the aliens. If they know
anything about science she will be on the side of the humans. I
mean presumably the aliens did not change her DNA, they just
inhabited her. Cloning her DNA will make something like an
identical twin to Ripley, it will not bring her herself back to
life. Bu this does seem to be the year for clones, and
misunderstanding cloning.
BLADE: Wesley Snipes is a half vampire fighting full vampires.
This is apparently an adaptation of an old comic book "Blade,
Vampire Slayer." I am not staking the family plot on this one.
LOST IN SPACE: The old TV series whole new look. There is a more
impressive looking robot, Gary Oldman plays Dr. Smith. At one time
I was impressed with him as an actor, but he is taking such lousy
roles. Actually the original premise TV series may make more sense
today than it did in the 60s. At the time you could not lose
control of your ship for a few moments and really be lost in space.
There was just not far you could go compared to the distances of
space. Today just say they fell through a wormhole. Whether or
not that is possible is unknown, but it sounds really scientific.
L. A. CONFIDENTIAL: This looks like it could be a good film noir
mystery. It is hard to tell. Kevin Spacey is usually a good actor
to have. Of course once the story is released to movie theaters,
it will no longer be confidential. Walker suggests that people he
knows have seen this film and like it.
SUB-ZERO: This is a feature-length piece of Batman animation by
the people who do the TV animated series, direct to video. Batman
battles Mr. Zero. The claim is this time they do Mr. Zero right.
This audience clearly did not like BATMAN AND ROBIN.
THE QUEST FOR CAMELOT: Warner Brothers has a musical animated film
that appears to be set in the time of Arthur and involves young
people looking for, well the title tells it. The music did not
sound too bad, what little we heard of it. A decent story and this
could be pretty good.
SPHERE: I am kind of surprised another Crichton novel is being
made so soon after the problems with CONGO. I realize I am blowing
my whole credibility here, but I avoided CONGO until it came to
cable, and then I thought it was not nearly so bad as I had been
led to believe. It fell down in the final third, but I guess I
like African adventures. CONGO was no JURASSIC PARK, but it was
not a bad adventure. True, I am digressing. SPHERE is not even as
good a novel as CONGO. I am surprised to see it becoming a film.
They have given it a powerhouse cast: Dustin Hoffman, Samuel
Jackson, Sharon Stone, and Peter Coyote. But it still is going to
have to be "improved" to make a good film.
THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE: High Concept: THE FIRM crossed with ANGEL
HEART. Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino star in the story of a bright
vibrant young lawyer (Reeves) Who gets a terrific offer from a law
firm too good to be true. It turns out the crafty old chief
partner (Pacino) is really the Devil. It is a little strange
having a lawyer be Lucifer. I mean I thought you could have
sympathy for the Devil. DeNiro has played a suave, sinister Satan,
now it's Pacino's turn.
I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER: Four teens like to tell spooky
stories around campfires. Then they become part of one. They
accidentally kill someone with their car. Some months later they
are stalked and terrorized by a relentless pursuer. The plot
sounds a lot like two hundred other stalker films.
GATTACA: This one is almost impossible to gauge. Almost none of
the plot is evident from the trailer. What we do know is that the
setting is a future is which the DNA in any of your cells can
instantly identify you. One man tries to fake a test using someone
else's blood. He is caught and is a fugitive. But whether this is
a road chase film with a slight science fiction premise or heavy
piece of science fiction is not obvious from the trailer.
THE MASK OF ZORRO: This is a sequel to THE MARK OF ZORRO. It
apparently tracks a new Zorro through his guerrilla campaign
against an unjust government. Sequels to THE MARK OF ZORRO go back
to DON Q, SON OF ZORROR, a silent film starring Douglas Fairbanks.
This looks like it could be fun, however, and Walker recommends it.
The new Zorro is played by Antonio Banderas and the villain is
Anthony Hopkins. You can't have too many well-made historical
adventure films.
GODZILLA: This is a joke trailer that is intended to tell little
about the film beyond that it is coming. As a schoolteacher is
giving a boring lecture about dinosaurs in a museum Godzilla steps
through a skylight. The animation is decent and believable.
Godzilla's movements are more fluid than in previous films. Walker
claims it will be an accurate version of the story with some
changes, This is not a really useful piece of information.
STARSHIP TROOPERS: This is still not released. It probably is the
most controversial film in production and I am guessing the results
will work more on a visual level than an intellectual one. The
claim is that characters will be fleshed out from the novel. But I
think the ones that will be fleshed out will be the ones who have
six feet rather than the ones who are six feet. Heinlein did not
show us much of the bugs.
There was a publicity piece for STARSHIP TROOPERS but it just
indicated that the actors think You should see the film and the
director Paul Verhoeven does not like Heinlein's politics.
That was about the size of it. The best bets are probably
L. A. CONFIDENTIAL and FAIRY TALE. [-mrl]
===================================================================
5. L. A. CONFIDENTIAL (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: This is a dense, complex, multi-
layered crime story that may just be one of the
best films of its kind ever made. Great
dialogue, very good plot, great characters,
good musical score, great photography. This is
one of the most engaging film script we have
seen in a while. This is a film to rank with
THE MALTESE FALCON and CHINATOWN among the best
of the crime. Rating: +3 (-4 to +4), 9 (0 to
10).
New York Critics: 27 positive, 0 negative, 0
mixed
They are almost a genre by themselves, Los Angeles and San
Francisco crime dramas. Set in the short space of time around the
World War II are the Philip Marlowe, Easy Rawlins, Sam Spade and a
host of others. Ranking with the best of them and inviting
comparison to CHINATOWN (which it may even beat) is
L. A. CONFIDENTIAL. Curtis Hanson who also directed THE HAND THAT
ROCKS THE CRADLE and THE RIVER WILD has given us a rich adaptation
of the James Ellroy novel, directing and co- authoring the
screenplay with Helgeland. He has retained a complex
interconnected plot, but rarely a bewildering one--not an easy
thing to do. In it Los Angeles is a completely interconnected
ecosystem of police, organized crime, small-time crime, race,
politics, TV, movies, law, and journalism. There is a second
system interconnecting idealism, bigotry, lies, half-lies,
blackmail, posturing, cover-ups, frame-ups, delusions, and
publicity. It is impossible to give a decent description of the
plot in one or two paragraphs as the film has enough plot for two
or three films. At 136 minutes, L. A. CONFIDENTIAL can pack in
this much plot only because nothing is wasted.
Against the backdrop of a 1953 Los Angeles rotting from within we
have the story of three cops. Each an idealist in certain ways but
willing to get his hands dirty for his principles. Bud White
(played by Russell Crowe) has a personal crusade against men who
beat women. He also believes in the code of silence protecting
other cops who break the law. His captain, Dudley Smith (James
Cromwell) figures that make White not very smart and uses him for
muscle and for semi-legal activities of keeping mobsters out of Los
Angeles. Almost precisely the opposite is Ed Exley (Guy Pearce).
Exley loves the letter of the law and sees no reason to be loyal to
other cops, but he also wants to climb the ladder and to get all
the glory he can gather. The third cop is Sgt. Jack Vincennes. He
gets his kicks being the police expert for TV's "Badge of Honor" (a
thinly disguised "Dragnet"). He like hobnobbing with celebrities
and with people like Sid Hudgeons (Danny DeVito) the editor for the
oxymoronically-named "Hush-Hush" true crime magazine. The three
cops get involved with a movie-star look-alike prostitution ring
run by suave Pierce Patchett (David Strathairn) and particularly
his Veronica Lake look-alike Lynn Bracken (Kim Bassinger). A
friend of hers gets herself murdered in a six-victim massacre at
the Nite Owl Coffee shop.
One nearly wants to call the execution of this film flawless. The
dialogue is crisp and ironic. The script is tightly written with
not a single scene wasted or unimportant. This is not a film that
leaves you a safe moment to go out for popcorn. The characters are
finely defined. No two are interchangeable. Eventually we
understand each and why he does what he does. If the film does
anything superficially it is in its explanation of why Exley is
such a straight-arrow and why White so hates men who beat women.
But the visuals really capture the period. (One minor error in
period: the film shows the premiere of the film WHEN WORLDS
COLLIDE. That would have been in 1951, George Pal's follow-up WAR
OF THE WORLDS was released in 1953.) Jerry Goldsmith has written a
jazzy score with the feel of a 1950s film.
It is amazing how much is packed even into a film of 136 minutes
and into what a neat package the pieces fit. Be prepared to sit
through the entire film, there is not a single scene wasted and few
scenes the film can function without. I give the film a +3 on the
-4 to +4 scale. Objectively this film probably ranks with
CHINATOWN and THE MALTESE FALCON. [-mrl]
===================================================================
6. THE FULL MONTY (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Six out-of-work Sheffield steelworkers
try Chippendales style stripping to make money
in spite of lacking strippers' physiques.
Combining elements of THE COMMITMENTS and
BRASSED OFF! this film treads what is now
overly familiar territory, but there is always
room for a film with good human drama and a few
laughs. Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4), 7 (0 to 10)
New York Critics: 14 positive, 1 negative, 3
mixed
Sheffield, England, in the early 1970s had an economy a strong as
the steel it produced, as a public relations documentary under the
credits tells us. But this is twenty-five years later and the
mills have closed. The people who planned to work in the mills the
rest of their lives are on the dole and scratching to find
subsistence jobs. Gaz (played by Robert Carlyle--the weird Begbie
of TRAINSPOTTING) has lost his wife and son to another man, mostly
because he cannot provide for them. He has only tenuous visiting
rights with his son, Nathan (William Snape) but pushes the law and
has his son as a nearly constant companion. Gaz does have an idea
how to make a little money. When the Chippendales male strippers
play in town they pack a local rented hall. If they can make money
so easily, perhaps Gaz and his friend Dave (Mark Addy) can put on
the same sort of a show.
The problem is that the people he can get on the stage to strip are
incredibly ordinary-looking people, not the Chippendales sort of
hunks. And they dance worse than they look. With more reluctant
pluck than looks and talent put together a group of six men
including their old foreman Gerald (Tom Wilkinson) and Horse, an
aging black drifter with a bad hip but who can teach them the
moves. (How they assemble this troop while still keeping their
plans secret is not really clear.) But the question is why would
women who have seen Chippendales be willing to pay to see such
losers strip? Gaz thinks that if they go the "full monty," baring
all, that that will give them the edge. The idea seems doomed from
the start. If they cannot make a living at what they were good at,
how can they expect to be cocky enough to entertain an audience
stripping, particularly looking so ordinary, this one skinny, that
one out of shape, another one over the hill.
THE FULL MONTY manages to be about a lot of things and work on
several levels. In part it is about the sad state of much of the
British economy and the effects, obvious and subtle, of
unemployment, broken dreams, and failure on the community.
Sheffield is city where the balance of power between the men and
the women has been destroyed by so many of the men's inability to
earn a living. Gerald, the former boss of Gaz and Dave has spent
six months maintaining a ruse for his wife that he still has his
job. When he can no longer provide luxuries his wife wants the
marriage breaks apart. We are led to assume something similar has
happened to Gaz's marriage well before the action of the story.
The film is also about how closely tied is Dave's self-image to his
ability to earn a living. In fact the most touching personal
relationship in the film is Dave's with his wife.
This is a cast that will seem to most American audiences to be
unknowns. Robert Carlyle of course is from TRAINSPOTTING.
Curiously he is the lead, but his performance is not one of the
better ones of the film. For me the performances I will remember
will be Mark Addy's Dave and Tom Wilkinson's Gerald. It is these
people pushed to the point of desperation and for whom the audience
generates the most sympathy. Tom Wilkinson of SENSE AND SENSIBILITY
and THE GHOST AND THE DARKNESS would seem to be the most secure of
the three and yet he has the fewest options and clearly feels it.
Sadly we do not see very much of Horse, played by Paul Barber. In
some ways his is the most enigmatic character and the film could
have used more story about him.
The only serious problem with THE FULL MONTY is that it is our
third or fourth film about the sad state of the economy in the
English hinterlands. This film reminds one a bit too much of
BRASSED OFF! And having a brass band making the best of a bad
situation in an early scene may be an unfortunate coincidence. But
a comedy-drama with good characters is always worth seeing. Listen
sharply to pierce the thick accents. I give this a low +2 on the
-4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
7. MRS. BROWN (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Queen Victoria is pulled from the
depths of her mourning for his husband by her
personal attendant. This gives him some power
real and more perceived and causes a minor
crisis. Someone more versed in the nuances may
find more here than meets this Yank's eye. The
film is at no point actually emotionally
involving. Muted in style and photography.
Rating: +1 (-4 to +4), 6 (0 to 10)
In 1861 Prince Albert, husband to Queen Victoria, died and the
Queen went into mourning where she stayed for the rest of her life.
For three years she did little but grieve. Clothes each day were
set out for Albert, who fortunately never appeared to put them on.
She had few responsibilities as Queen, but she ignored even them.
And the public missed their view of royalty. The Times labeled her
"The Great Absentee." Finally she did appear for the opening of
parliament but apparently in such a depressed state that it was
said that she should not have bothered.
Then a servant from Scotland, John Brown, came to Windsor to serve
her there in the position of gillie, a sort of attendant. In spite
of--or perhaps because of--his candor he was able to pull her out
of her doldrums. He became a confidante and a friend, though at
least according to the account in the film MRS. BROWN he never had
much power over her other than the power of common sense.
Nevertheless Victoria's unwillingness to return to the full level
of her responsibilities combine with her friendship with him gave
the public the opinion that he had a good deal more power than he
actually had, suggesting that he was her master and she was his
mistress. The crisis ended when the wisdom of Disraeli prevailed
and the Queen began showing up more frequently in public and the
people got their taste of royalty.
This is the story of that relationship written by Jeremy Brock and
directed by John Madden for broadcast on the BBC and on PBS's
MASTERPIECE THEATER. Queen Victoria is played by Judi Dench who has
a long history of Shakespearean acting, but perhaps is most easily
recognized as James Bond's new M from GOLDENEYE. Billy Connolly
plays the beefy John Brown with full mustache and beard (the
original had only the beard). As the film opens Victoria is
behaving not so much like a queen as like a spoiled child who
refuses to cooperate with anyone because of the monumental loss of
Prince Albert. She is also angered that Albert died with the title
Queen's Consort rather than King. The early part of the story is
very reminiscent of the film PASSION FISH. Brown insists that the
Queen needs fresh air and manipulates her into riding. In his
company she regains some of her will to return to life. Brown is
less than an idealist, however. He uses his friendship with the
Queen for power in the Royal household. He drinks heavily and
while he is willing be candid with the Queen, in any disagreement
with others, he will back up the Queen's side like a yes man. This
earns him enemies in high places.
Victoria has returned to the stream of life but she is willing to
go only so far. She will go to Balmoral in Scotland to take in the
Scottish scenery, but she does not want to return to England and
her social responsibilities. Antony Sher plays young and sharp-
witted Benjamin Disraeli, not yet a friend of Victoria, nor is he
deserving to be. He dubs Victoria Mrs. Brown. But his wisdom
prevails.
Richard Greatrex's camera keeps the style of the film physically
subdued. The production is painted in large part in blacks, browns
and deep reds. Much of the film takes place in half-dark rooms and
often Greatrex will film a character in shadow. The film's most
interesting sequence is just showing Victoria and her two daughters
going swimming and seeing what modesty was common in those days for
royalty as her enclosed cart backs up to the lake on a rope
arrangement so that she may step down the steps into the water.
Then she steps out covered from neck to foot. MRS. BROWN offers
very credible look at the powerful people in England in the mid to
late 1800s, but it lacks any real dramatic punch. There are no
great secrets and much of the relationship between Brown and
Victoria remains unknown and presumably lost with Brown's diary.
The film lacks dramatic punch and when it is all over the viewer is
left to wonder what was the point. I rate it a +1 on the -4 to +4
scale. [-mrl]
Mark Leeper
MT 3E-433 732-957-5619
mleeper@lucent.com
Being in politics is like being a football coach;
you have to be smart enough to understand the game,
and dumb enough to think it's important.
-- Eugene McCarthy