Lean Quest! Hobson's Choice

"Don't worry, Mr. Laughton. I'm sure Lord Olivier isn't in the best of health either..."

So, after, I dunno, a little over three years (or a little less than two months), Lean Quest! finally comes to a close. As of right this moment, I have seen every single film directed by David Lean. Rather than rest on my laurels (because I have a job, homework and studying to procrastinate from), I shall regale you with this final review. Not of Lean films period - you'll notice many notable titles have yet to be reviewed or copy-and-pasted for this site - but for the Lean Quest!

Hobson's Choice is one of Lean's late-early, or middle-middle, or what you have films. By Lean standards, it's a mite odd, as it's a straight comedy. And David Lean isn't exactly a director known for his comedic prowess. It's not a bad film, and certainly better than the stupefyingly dull last entry in this series, but as with our last two offerings, by Lean standards it's a bit of a let down.

Based on a play by Harold Brighouse, the play tells the story of the Hobson family. Henry Hobson (Charles Laughton), is the middle-aged, drunken boot maker who has lost his wife and keeping his daughters in a state of repression. His oldest daughter Maggie (Brenda De Banzie) rebels, deciding to strike out on her own, bringing her Father's talented but gormless employee Willie Mossop (John Mills) along with her, for a more or less forcible marriage, and to start their own business. While Mr. Hobson wallows in alcohol, his daughter and former employee become a huge success, and ultimately Hobson is forced to sell out to them.

Now, I think we need to reiterate a key point for the sake of either elucidating the argument or padding the review: David Lean is not a comedic director. The only other straight comedy he did was Blithe Spirit - admittedly, a very good film, but then he was directly adapting a Noel Coward play. When he does tackle comedy in his other films - exceptions being made with Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia - he displays British humor at its worst: stiff, insistent, and oh-so-proper, distinctly lacking in a little thing we call wit. Brief Encounter is plagued by the annoying doubles-act of Stanley Holloway (who was only ever funny in The Lavender Hill Mob) and Joyce Carrey, whose sequences not only seem out of place, but actively bog down an otherwise wonderful film. Holloway proves similarly grating in This Happy Breed, whose idea of comedy is getting drunk and singing army songs with Robert Newton. (Aren't you getting married in the morning, Stanley? Make sure you get to the church on time.) If you can name any hilariously side-splitting scenes from other Lean movies, or even chuckle-worthy moments, I'll retract this whole paragraph. Lean is a dramatic director, and while he may excell at an occasional witty line, he's clearly not that comfortable in the laughter territory. And so we come to Hobson's Choice.

Hobson's Choice has its merits, no doubt. On a technical level, it's quite good. The cinematography and direction are good, with a few stand-out pieces of direction. The opening scene is quite clever, parodying Great Expectations as it prowls through Hobson's boot shop, ended by a drunken Hobson belching. A similarly striking shot has Hobson throwing a stack of leaflets into the air, and they trail after him in the wind. In a film with more substance than this, it would be quite impressive. Auteurists will note Willie and Maggie's decidedly awkward wedding night, which brings strongly to mind the equivalent scene in Ryan's Daughter. And there's an odd scene of a Temperance march, blaring Shall We Gather At the River?, which put this writer strangely in mind of a completely unrelated film...

I think we can address the film's sense of humor pretty quickly, or else through the characters. The movie doesn't lend itself to easy analysis: I should probably read something into Mr. Hobson's bourgeois oppression of his three daughters, which signifies misogyny and social restrictions on women, blah blah blah, but I'm not up for it and the film isn't good enough to warrant such an analysis. The movie has an odd sense of humor. It tries for Noel Coward-esque drawing room humor, but it doesn't come off. Whether this is from the screenplay for the cast being a bunch of cigar-store Indians, I can't entirely tell. Maybe it's both. And that brings us to Mr. Hobson.

Although his character is secondary to the drama (billing aside), Charles Laughton naturally dominates the film. The movie clearly is designed with Hobson to be the ultimate Fool, allowing Willie and Maggie to perform the light comedy and drama and then wander in and steal the show through sheer force of weight. This is both a blessing and a curse, as Mr. Laughton gives a performance that is bafflingly schizophrenic. Laughton has some fine moments of comedy, particularly when he sits down to, you know, act. But just as much of the film is devoted to his acting like, well, a drunken clown - waddling and stumbling and falling down holes in the street and belching and goggling and generally making himself into a huge nuisance. A pity, as I've loved Laughton in the few other works I've seen him in, most notably his great turn as the hilariously corrupt Senator Gracchus in Spartacus, but his performance here is simultaneously atrocious and excellent - I know not what to make of such a conundrum at 11:45 on a Tuesday night.

As for our leads? At the risk of pissing someone off, it has to be said: John Mills is one of the most bland, stiff and boring actors I've ever seen. He did give one astonishing performance in Tunes of Glory, managing to match and at times even overtake the great Alec Guinness - but in everything else I've seen him in (particularly his work with Lean) he's been a dull, stiff, overly earnest bore. So basically, here he's playing John Mills in a David Lean film, only he spends the whole movie saying "By Gum!" Great. Brenda de Banzie is alright, but her character is quite obnoxious and thus it's very hard to care about her.

Malcolm Arnold contributes the score, and it's annoying to the extreme: loud, intrusize, and all-too-insistent of the film's whimsicality, it's the worst kind of score this kind of film could have. The score is at its absolute worst during the puddle-chasing scene, which might be funny if it weren't for the blaring "Oh 'e's drunk!" trumpets and whakced-out theramin. Taking into account Arnold's work here, his banal action/melodrama score for The Sound Barrier and his if-it-weren't-for-Colonel Bogey-it-would-define-generic work on Bridge on the River Kwai, one thanks God that Lean found Maurice Jarre for his later epics.

Well, Hobson's Choice is a decent waste of time, but it earns the dubious distinction of being a mediocre Lean film. It makes the bottom three with In Which We Serve and The Sound Barrier. Perhaps if I had more of a tolerance for stiff-as-a-board Brits who couldn't generate a laugh at Three-Mile Island, or wooing theramins and blaring drunk trumpets, or fat guys falling down constant, I would enjoy it more. Oh well, at least it has that opening shot, and the hilarious moment where a giant rat winks at the drunken Hobson. Yes, you read that right.

So, I'm done with Lean Quest! Everybody PARTY!

Rating: 6/10 - Use Your Own Discretion

The Wonderful Johnny and June

Novena to Saint Jude

I am to begin a 9-day Novena to Saint Jude. One should never presume, but I hope for an answer to praying to one of Heaven's most reliable and trustworthy Saints. I suppose they're all trustworthy really, mirroring, as they do, the Good God. However, I remain an unreliable and unworthy sinner, a lost cause of the Church so to speak, and hope for mercy and Grace.

John Adams: Birthing Liberty

"A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." - John Adams

And what a fragile thing liberty is. For over two hundred years, America has wrestled with the issues emanating from its historic revolt against British tyranny, inspiring the world with its example of idealistic freedom. Ever since the Founders split into the Federalists and Republicans, the issues have remained largely the same, even if specifics differ. What amount of individual freedom must be lost to the government, and under what circumstance? How strong should the federal government be, and what of the states? How large should the US military be, and how much strength should it have? Should the government tax its citizenry, and if so how much? These issues are still with us today, albeit in a wide variety of variations, and while the Founders may take issue with many of the directions in which our society has gone since 1787 (and the obvious technological advancements), they would still largely recognize the country the bequeathed.

HBO's epic miniseries John Adams takes a look at just how difficult founding America was. Focusing on one of America's less acclaimed Founding Fathers, John Adams (Paul Giamatti), the series provides a sweeping, panoramic view of colonial America and shows how our current system of government came about. It wasn't easy; it took decades of conflict, much compromise and a good amount of bloodshed to achieve, but ultimately success was achieved. America still has a long way to go before it can be a truly perfect nation, but its ability to maintain such a society for almost 250 years is greatly to the credit of its Founders.

Although Adams is the main character of the series, he is a man who lived and moved in interesting times, surrounded by a cadre of memorable figures, some brilliant, some mercurial, all fascinating - and most of them, it would seem, more well-reknowned. The Founding Fathers in particular are a well-rounded bunch of characters, transcending their air-brushed history book caricatures: Tom Wilkinson's Benajmin Franklin is an exceptionally bright and witty man, whose mercurial and perpetually amused nature first intrigues and then aggravates Adams; David Morse's George Washington is a strong natural leader with no stomach for politics; Rufus Sewell's Alexander Hamilton is a fiercely intelligent man who becomes a power-hungry trouble-maker; Stephen Dillane's Thomas Jefferson is a brilliant liberal who lets his revolutionary fervor and purity overwhelm his common sense. Some may take issue with some of these portrayals, but they all manage to avoid the usual one-dimensional cliches and pitfalls associated with portraying such legendary individuals. The Founding of the nation is a near-run thing, with many representatives - including Zeljko Ivanek's dignified Pennsylvania delegate John Dickinson - arguing against independence, and with so many great minds and colossal egos debating not only independence, but the finer points of government and power, makes one marvel at the fact that enough Compromise was reached without significant internicine bloodshed at all.

And what makes Adams stand out from this distinguished crowd? Certainly, Adams lacks the lionization that many of his counterparts received; he tends to be, if not dismissed, then minimized by historians, who prefer the flashier personalities of a Jefferson or Hamilton to "His Rotundity". This is completely unfair to Adams, his character, and his achievements. When the Boston street thugs led by his cousin Sam Adams wanted to hang British soldiers for firing into a mob, Adams defended them, not for any political benefit, but because it was the right thing to do. When Independence was still a radical idea, Adams pushed for it with all his strength. When Federalists and Republicans were at each other's throats after Washington left the Presidency, Adams stepped in and held the country together. Adams was not a perfect man, and his family troubles - from his drunken wastrel son Charles to the illness and premature death of his daughter "Nabby" - were largely, if not his fault, than his responsibility - for a man who devotes his life to politics and the world will suffer at home. And certainly, Adams' prickly personality, touched with a dash of pomposity and perhaps a hint of egotism, makes him less than admirable in certain aspects. But in the end, Adams is far more of a great man than a flawed one, for he was a man who believed in doing what was right, and loved his country above everything - even himself and, regrettably, his family.

Looking at the show from a technical viewpoint, there is much to admire. Green screen technology is fairly advanced by this point, and it's well-used throughout, creating the illusion of 18th Century Boston, Paris, London, Philadelphia, and Washington. Both the harshness of winter and pastoral beauty of rural Massachusetts, the developing, bustling colonial cities of Washington and Boston, and the ornate majesty of Europe's royal courts, are portrayed with luscious attention to deal through the marvelous cinematography by Tak Fujimoto. Tom Hooper's direction is stylish and detailed, grand yet subtle. Kirk Ellis's script does a wonderful job of weaving historical quotations with sharp, word-perfect dialogue. Attention must be paid, also, to the stirring score by Robert Lane and Joseph Viterelli, and to the marvelous, expansive production design, which makes sure that even the smallest button on the barely visible extra's trousers is absolutely perfect. Historical accuracy is not in and of itself a virtue, but when combined with all of the above, it's certainly an asset.

The best episodes of the show are those which focus on specific incidents and events. Episodes 3 and 4 are by far the weakest, simply because they try to cover too much time in too little. The focus on Adams makes this inevitable; Adams spent most of the War being shuttled around Europe, so it's understandable, but it doesn't really make for great television. But when the show maintains a distinct focus on a specific time, issue or event, it clicks - Adams' eloquent defense of the soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre, the framing of the Declaration of Independence, the growing rift between Jefferson and Hamilton (and, as a result, Jefferson and Adams), Adams' troubled presidency and escalating family problems and tragedies. These showcase some of the finest, dramatically powerful moments in television, if for no other reason than unlike Friends or House or The X-Files or even Dora the Explorer (not to bash any of those shows), these events really happened, and these people really existed.

Paul Giamatti gives an extraordinary lead performance as Adams. All of the superlatives have been exhausted by reviewers and critics more eloquent and widely read by than me. Suffice it to say, Giamatti is astonishing. He has 10 hours with which to work - more than most actors get with a character - but he manages to deal with every aspect of his characters' complex and difficult personality, transcending a mere impersonation or even portrayal. The impersonation is quite well-done, but the performance is more impressive; Giamatti makes Adams into a wonderful character, and ultimately a sympathetic, complex human being.


Just as impressive as Giamatti is Laura Linney, portraying Adams' long-suffering, extremely intelligent and fiercely loyal wife Abigail. Their marriage is one of the greatest love stories of all time - two truly loving people in an equal partnership - and it shines through brilliantly. Abigail is a wonderfully strong character who projects a power, presence and fire unheard of in 18th Century women. Her relationship with her husband - sometimes warm, sometimes caustic, but always honest and loving - is the most endearing part of her character. She calls her husband on his faults, but to help him improve himself rather than to mock him. Linney is simply amazing, matching Giamatti line-for-line, word-for-word, as an equally weighty screen presence. Both actors won Emmys, and in each instance, it was extraordinarily well-reserved.

All of the supporting characters are nailed to a tee. Perhaps most worthy of praise are Stephen Dillane's wonderful, layered portrayal of Jefferson, and David Morse's dignified performance as Washington. Tom Wilkinson gives an endlessly fun performance as Franklin, stealing his every scene and making some of the show's drier episodes more palatable. There are also memorable guest appearances, including Zeljko Ivanek (as Pennsylvania delegate John Dickinson, one of the last hold-outs against declaring independence) and Tom Hollander (as the humbled King George III, forced to accept America's seperation and then its friendship), which add invaluable flavor and dramatic weight to the storyline.

John Adams is a great work of television, and a great achievement in historical story-telling. It's not perfect, and it suffers a bit from telescoping important historical events, but many of these are inevitable given the show's format. For the most part, it's rivetting history and well-done entertainment at once. For even a non-discerning viewer, it should be worth a look; for a history buff, such as myself, it's a definite treat.

Rating: 8/10 - Highly Recommended

Levi Stubbs RIP

Levi Stubbs of The Four Tops, a band that made some truly astonishing soul music has died age 72.



They just don't make them like this anymore.

Feast of St Luke, Evangelist

The weather in the UK is beautiful at the moment...by tradition when it is sunny and warm in October, apparently we call it a St Luke's Summer. It is apt then, that his feast is today.

Luke, the writer of the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, has been identified with St. Paul's "Luke, the beloved physician" (Colossians 4:14). We know few other facts about Luke's life from Scripture and from early Church historians.

It is believed that Luke was born a Greek and a Gentile. In Colossians 10-14 speaks of those friends who are with him. He first mentions all those "of the circumcision" -- in other words, Jews -- and he does not include Luke in this group. Luke's gospel shows special sensitivity to evangelizing Gentiles. It is only in his gospel that we hear the parable of the Good Samaritan, that we hear Jesus praising the faith of Gentiles such as the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian (Lk.4:25-27), and that we hear the story of the one grateful leper who is a Samaritan (Lk.17:11-19). According to the early Church historian Eusebius Luke was born at Antioch in Syria.

In our day, it would be easy to assume that someone who was a doctor was rich, but scholars have argued that Luke might have been born a slave. It was not uncommon for families to educate slaves in medicine so that they would have a resident family physician. Not only do we have Paul's word, but Eusebius, Saint Jerome, Saint Irenaeus and Caius, a second-century writer, all refer to Luke as a physician.

We have to go to Acts to follow the trail of Luke's Christian ministry. We know nothing about his conversion but looking at the language of Acts we can see where he joined Saint Paul. The story of the Acts is written in the third person, as an historian recording facts, up until the sixteenth chapter. In Acts 16:8-9 we hear of Paul's company "So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. During the night Paul had a vision: there stood a man of Macedonia pleading with him and saying, 'Come over to Macedonia and help us.' " Then suddenly in 16:10 "they" becomes "we": "When he had seen the vision, we immediately tried to cross over to Macedonia, being convinced that God had called us to proclaim the good news to them."

So Luke first joined Paul's company at Troas at about the year 51 and accompanied him into Macedonia where they traveled first to Samothrace, Neapolis, and finally Philippi. Luke then switches back to the third person which seems to indicate he was not thrown into prison with Paul and that when Paul left Philippi Luke stayed behind to encourage the Church there. Seven years passed before Paul returned to the area on his third missionary journey. In Acts 20:5, the switch to "we" tells us that Luke has left Philippi to rejoin Paul in Troas in 58 where they first met up. They traveled together through Miletus, Tyre, Caesarea, to Jerusalem.

Luke is the loyal comrade who stays with Paul when he is imprisoned in Rome about the year 61: "Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers" (Philemon 24). And after everyone else deserts Paul in his final imprisonment and sufferings, it is Luke who remains with Paul to the end: "Only Luke is with me" (2 Timothy 4:11).

Luke's inspiration and information for his Gospel and Acts came from his close association with Paul and his companions as he explains in his introduction to the Gospel: "Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:1-3).

Luke's unique perspective on Jesus can be seen in the six miracles and eighteen parables not found in the other gospels. Luke's is the gospel of the poor and of social justice. He is the one who tells the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man who ignored him. Luke is the one who uses "Blessed are the poor" instead of "Blessed are the poor in spirit" in the beatitudes. Only in Luke's gospel do we hear Mary 's Magnificat where she proclaims that God "has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty" (Luke 1:52-53).

Luke also has a special connection with the women in Jesus' life, especially Mary. It is only in Luke's gospel that we hear the story of the Annunciation, Mary's visit to Elizabeth including the Magnificat, the Presentation, and the story of Jesus' disappearance in Jerusalem. It is Luke that we have to thank for the Scriptural parts of the Hail Mary: "Hail Mary full of grace" spoken at the Annunciation and "Blessed are you and blessed is the fruit of your womb Jesus" spoken by her cousin Elizabeth.

Forgiveness and God's mercy to sinners is also of first importance to Luke. Only in Luke do we hear the story of the Prodigal Son welcomed back by the overjoyed father. Only in Luke do we hear the story of the forgiven woman disrupting the feast by washing Jesus' feet with her tears. Throughout Luke's gospel, Jesus takes the side of the sinner who wants to return to God's mercy.

Reading Luke's gospel gives a good idea of his character as one who loved the poor, who wanted the door to God's kingdom opened to all, who respected women, and who saw hope in God's mercy for everyone.

He is often shown with an ox or a calf because these are the symbols of sacrifice -- the sacrifice Jesus made for all the world.

St Luke is the patron of physicians and surgeons.

The Day of the Jackal

I did enjoy Stella Dallas in class last night, but TCM ran one of my favorites, The Day of the Jackal, tonight, and since I have an IMDB comment written I'll simply re-post it here rather than write a new review (don't worry though, I'll find time this weekend). The Stepford Wives is also on TCM, though I'm not sure if I'm up for that one when I still have John Adams to watch tonight. Anyway...



1963, France. French President Charles De Gaulle (Adrien Cayla-Legrand) has decided, after a popular referendum, to allow the North African nation of Algeria independence from France. This action leads to the death of hundreds of French residence in Algeria and bloody conflict which extends to Europe, as disgruntled French army officers form the OAS, a terrorist group which strives to assassinate De Gaulle. After a failed attempt on the President's life, the leaders of the OAS are tried and executed, and the organization is in tatters. The surviving leaders of the OAS hire a professional assassin (Edward Fox), codenamed the Jackal, to assassinate De Gaulle. Using a bewildering array of disguises, false passports, and other tricks, the Jackal works his way through Europe, being tracked by a frantic French bureaucracy led by milquetoast Police Commissioner Lebel (Michael Lonsdale). It's up to Lebel to find and stop the Jackal before August 25th, Liberation Day, when the assassin will make his move.

Based on the gripping if very long novel by Frederick Forsyth, Fred Zinneman's "Day of the Jackal" is one of the best of its genre. It succeeds largely because, as Roger Ebert said, "it knows exactly what it's talking about". Though fictional, the film's look and feel gives it an air of authenticity that few, if any, other thrillers could hope to match. The film has an almost documentary air about it, which is one of the major reasons it is so successful.

Much of the credit is due to director Fred Zinneman. Despite having a lengthy career making such classics as "High Noon", "From Here to Eternity", and "A Man for All Seasons", Zinneman is generally overlooked when it comes to great directors. Certainly, it's understandable why. Zinneman's films typically do not contain much in the way of flair or flash, at least when it comes to photography. Zinneman's direction is straightforward, unpretentious, with no fancy camera angles: he allows the script, sets, actors, and action on screen to do the work. This might not be the accomplished method of film making, but it works wonders in Zinneman's best films, particularly here. The lack of stylization creates the aforementioned feel that this story could happen in real life. And yet, Zinneman effectively creates suspense in spite of conventional music or camera movements; the finale, where Lebel and a Gendarme (Phillipe Leotard) try to locate the assassin (with La Marseillaise playing on the soundtrack), is sheer nail-biting brilliance.

Other elements contribute to the film's success. The lengthy, in-depth, and almost labyrinthine source novel is reduced by screenwriter Kenneth Ross into succinct, economic dialog which conveys as much information with as little verbiage as possible. Georges Delerue's score functions much the same as his work in Zinneman's "A Man for All Seasons". There is little actual music, other than diegetic music from marching bands or street musicians, which adds immeasurably the look and feel of the movie.

What makes or breaks the film, however, is the cast, and this film is truly unique in its acting. The film recruits a huge, very talented cast of actors from both sides of the English Channel, and every performance is wonderfully understated, free of histrionics or theatricality, which makes the film all the more believable.

Edward Fox is marvelous in the title role. He plays the assassin as the ultimate detached professional; unconcerned about politics or individuals, he simply does his job and does it well. He can be counted on for results. He is neither arrogant nor cocky, just an expert who knows what he's doing and will go any length to achieve it. Fox is completely, utterly, and chillingly believable as the Jackal, and one is torn between rooting for him to succeed or for him to get caught.

Also fantastic is the Jackal's nemesis, Commissioner Lebel, who is played in an equally understated performance by Michael Lonsdale. Lebel is not an action hero, nor particularly exciting; he is a no-frills, straightforward police inspector who uses his brains, intuition, skill, and more than a bit of luck to track down the Jackal. Lonsdale and Fox give two of the most utterly believable performances ever captured on film, a testament to both actors.

The rest of the cast follows suit, although few of the other characters have as much screen time. Cyril Cusack plays the charming gunsmith who builds the Jackal's perfect weapon; Delphine Seyrig is a middle-aged Frenchwoman who begins an ill-advised affair with the assassin; Derek Jacobi is Lebel's dedicated assistant; Tony Britton as the crusty Scotland Yard investigator who gives Lebel his first break in the case; Jean Martin and Eric Porter play the desperate OAS members forced to hire an outsider to do their dirty work. These are just a few of the many fine performers in the film, and all give well-rounded, believable performances.

"The Day of the Jackal" is a brilliant thriller that still holds up well almost 35 years later. By capturing the essence of 1960's France, and by creating a completely believable atmosphere, Zinneman draws the viewer into the film. It is unlikely that the viewer will be able to lose interest as the plot moves along. A brilliant thriller, and a masterpiece for all time.

For the record: The remake with Bruce Willis, Sidney Poitier and Richard Gere is alright, and remains reasonably faithful to the source material, but it does add a good deal of embellishment and over-the-top elements that demean it somewhat (does the Jackal really need to use a remote-controlled automatic cannon to carry out an assassination? Fox's little contraption is infinitely more interesting a weapon). Plus Gere's Irish accent is one of the worst excuse for human speech ever uttered.

(If you want to read more on this film, check out this excellent retrospective of Fred Zinneman's life and career.)

Rating: 9/10 - Highest Recommendation