Took me a long time to get into this but now I’m hooked. Great story telling – so many scenes and locations and it goes bang-bang-bang. The first ep had the detectives and DAs relating personally to the tale (is everyone in New York an alcoholic or former alcoholic or is it just writers rooms?) but thankfully they dropped that. I love all the exposition and the 50 worders and dailies trying to hit the mark, the varying quality of the actors. I even liked the “ripped from the headlines” and “hey lets talk about a social issue” ness of some stories (eg AIDS mercy killing.)
It took Chris Noth a few eps to figure out how to play his character but once he did (i.e. as smug) he was fine (apart from that one episode where he emotively bangs against a window). Michael Moriarty and Steven Hill are terrific, love that method mumbling where you can understand every word. Richard Brooks, the black assistant DA, isn’t as good – he keeps sighing and looks like a guitarist from In Living Colour. Dan Florek has these great sad eyes to play the chief cop.
The guest cast is a constant delight. It’s great fun to see future stars like Michael Mancini from Melrose Place, Leo from West Wing, Miranda from Sex and the City, the intense black guy from seasons 1 and 2 of Dexter (giving the same performance), Samuel L Jackson (a very small role as a lawyer), Philip Seymour Hoffman (rapist), Christine Baranski (mobster’s sister), Ron Rifkin, Fritz Weaver, etc.
The show was surprisingly PC – the killers are usually rich wives, drunk doctors, Harvard grads, white cops, corrupt cops. The oddest ep was the child abuse one - this felt cut about, as if it had been edited for legal reasons. I didn't like the prostitution ep that much until the final twist. Consistently superb show.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Radio review – SDP – “Rope of Sand” (1950) **
I’m not a big fan of Burt Lancaster on radio – he always seems a bit too soft spoken. His material here doesn’t help him – lots of running around the desert. Corinne Calvert reprises her screen role and she's hard to hear at times too; Paul Henreid is a little more legible. The African setting is at least unusual.
Play review – “Richard III” by William Shakespeare
After three historical works which concentrated on plot and action, Richard III (really Henry VI Part IV - it helps to have read the previous three plays) saw Shakespeare step up a level. For the first time he focuses on the one protagonist, enabling him to dig deeper into a character eg murder of Clarence involves dialogues among the assassins as to the nature of their work, Richard’s motivations.
There are some great drama scenes where women get stuck into Richard, a satirical one where Buckingham tries to whip up enthusiasm for Dick, and powerful stuff such as the killing of the princes and the final battle when it all goes down for Dickie. There’s too much attention paid to Richmond (later Henry VII) at the end – who cares about this character by then? But I guess Will had to suck up to the boss.
There are some great drama scenes where women get stuck into Richard, a satirical one where Buckingham tries to whip up enthusiasm for Dick, and powerful stuff such as the killing of the princes and the final battle when it all goes down for Dickie. There’s too much attention paid to Richmond (later Henry VII) at the end – who cares about this character by then? But I guess Will had to suck up to the boss.
Play review – “Henry VI Part 3” by William Shakespeare
Wimpy Henry, faced with civil war, cedes his title to the Duke of York. This annoys his wife – the first great female Shakespeare character – who rises in rebellion. (I like when Clifford asks the King not to come along to battle, as the Queen does better with him not around.) A great Duke of York death scene follows, then there’s lots of changing of allegiances eg Warwick – one minute it’s pro Henry forces are winning then losing. This doesn’t have an overall protagonist – Henry is support, ditto Margaret, it’s about the Duke of York, then his son.
It’s not great Shakespeare but he probably chose to adapt this story because it offered him plenty of action and plot without having to think it up. In places you can feel him pushing himself, such as a bit where two men realise they’ve killed their father and son respectively. Like Part II the ending is open – Henry and his sons are stabbed, but you’re conscious there is another story. (At times the play feels like a trailer for Richard III – the future king does this big evil monologue in the second half.)
It’s not great Shakespeare but he probably chose to adapt this story because it offered him plenty of action and plot without having to think it up. In places you can feel him pushing himself, such as a bit where two men realise they’ve killed their father and son respectively. Like Part II the ending is open – Henry and his sons are stabbed, but you’re conscious there is another story. (At times the play feels like a trailer for Richard III – the future king does this big evil monologue in the second half.)
Movie review – “Just the Two of Us” (1975) *
In the 1970s, the two leading female directors in the exploitation field were Stephanie Rothman and Babara Peeters. Both naturally worked for Roger Corman then set out on their own. Peeters is credited as co-director and sole writer for this, which is part of the "dykesploitation" sub-genre.
Two housewives go to lunch one day and see some lesbians hold hands. This encourages them to have sex; one wants to keep going but the other one doesn’t – tragedy results. This is a well-known gay plot – Penthouse Forum used it for years.
It’s not super exploitative – nudity but the women are older, there are pleas for understanding gays as normal, etc. But you reduce the exploitive factor and to be honest what you’re left with is some fairly awful acting and dialogue
Two housewives go to lunch one day and see some lesbians hold hands. This encourages them to have sex; one wants to keep going but the other one doesn’t – tragedy results. This is a well-known gay plot – Penthouse Forum used it for years.
It’s not super exploitative – nudity but the women are older, there are pleas for understanding gays as normal, etc. But you reduce the exploitive factor and to be honest what you’re left with is some fairly awful acting and dialogue
Play review - “Henry VI Part 2” by William Shakespeare
This sequel deals with the War of the Roses, focusing on various people trying to knock off the king, including the Duke of York and Cade's Rebellion. The Queen comes into her own as does Suffolk; the idiot King remains a side character. There's less action that Part 1 (though there’s still a witch and some torture and plenty of grisly description) and more treachery. The Duke of York scenes sometimes feels like a trial run for Richard III,
A play of great scenes rather than a cohesive whole. eg conviction of Gloucester, the death of Suffolk by pirates, the killing of the clerk just because he can read and write, all of Cade's rebellion. But you're still conscious that this is a lead up to Richard III.
A play of great scenes rather than a cohesive whole. eg conviction of Gloucester, the death of Suffolk by pirates, the killing of the clerk just because he can read and write, all of Cade's rebellion. But you're still conscious that this is a lead up to Richard III.
Book review – “Jean Harlow” by David Stenn
Superb bio of the famous star – excellently written, very well researched; it solves two big Hollywood mysteries (who killed Paul Bern – a section which reads like a murder mystery – and how did Harlow die) as well as having a heart breaking ending.
Harlow comes across as one of the most likeable stars ever – good natured, hard working, utterly lacking in pretention. Throw in her beauty and talent (which took a while to emerge), no wonder audiences related to her. Even when she played trashy girls she was very engaging.
She isn’t a classic beauty but she was very striking with a great body. A great deal is made about Harlow’s child-like innocence when it came to sex; I think it’s more accurate to describe it as a lack of self-consciousness. She wasn’t the tramp she often depicted on screen, but she was no retiring violet either – she lost her virginity at a very young age in non-stressful circumstances; eloped as a teenager; enjoyed flings with Max Baer and a gangster (Howard Hawks reckons he had a one-night stand with her but I think he was full of it); enjoyed sleeping and walking around nude; liked to discard underwear. That’s quite sophisticated behaviour, even if she did have a sexless second marriage.
I always liked William Powell as an actor and heard good things about him as a person but he doesn’t come across too well here. He genuinely liked Harlow, and she adored him – but it’s plain unfair to drag a girl like that along for so long, and not to give her a kid was rotten (she had an abortion to him). Stenn is empathetic to Harlow's mother - on one hand a dreadful person, on the other hand she did do what she thought was her best for her daughter (Stenn defends in particular her behaviour during her daughter's final days).
Harlow comes across as one of the most likeable stars ever – good natured, hard working, utterly lacking in pretention. Throw in her beauty and talent (which took a while to emerge), no wonder audiences related to her. Even when she played trashy girls she was very engaging.
She isn’t a classic beauty but she was very striking with a great body. A great deal is made about Harlow’s child-like innocence when it came to sex; I think it’s more accurate to describe it as a lack of self-consciousness. She wasn’t the tramp she often depicted on screen, but she was no retiring violet either – she lost her virginity at a very young age in non-stressful circumstances; eloped as a teenager; enjoyed flings with Max Baer and a gangster (Howard Hawks reckons he had a one-night stand with her but I think he was full of it); enjoyed sleeping and walking around nude; liked to discard underwear. That’s quite sophisticated behaviour, even if she did have a sexless second marriage.
I always liked William Powell as an actor and heard good things about him as a person but he doesn’t come across too well here. He genuinely liked Harlow, and she adored him – but it’s plain unfair to drag a girl like that along for so long, and not to give her a kid was rotten (she had an abortion to him). Stenn is empathetic to Harlow's mother - on one hand a dreadful person, on the other hand she did do what she thought was her best for her daughter (Stenn defends in particular her behaviour during her daughter's final days).
Some classic bits: Harlow help up her low cut dresses up by icing her nipples (mother did the icinng!); Paul Bern, her second husband, once tried to kill himself by sticking his head down the toilet but it got stuck. Excellent book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)