Review: Nicholas Nickleby (2002)

Tomorrow I'll be faced with the start of the dreadful ordeal known as Camp NaNoWriMo. I can sum up my feelings about this in two words: horrified screaming. But meanwhile, here's another review!

I really don't know what to think of this film. On the one hand, it sticks fairly close to the book. On the other... well, more about that later.

Side note: The theme music isn't as memorable as the series', and it's much more jolly. It's all right, but it doesn't make much impression.

Nicholas Nickleby is a 2002 film adaptation of Charles Dickens' third novel. This version was released a year after the 2001 miniseries -- the first miniseries I ever reviewed, and which I personally prefer to the film.

Recognisable actors:
Charlie Hunnam (Alan in Crimson Peak) as Nicholas
Jim Broadbent (Professor Kirke in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe 2005) as Wackford Squeers
Christopher Plummer (Captain von Trapp in The Sound of Music) as Ralph Nickleby
Jamie Bell (voice in Tintin in The Adventures of Tintin) as Smike
Anne Hathaway (Fantine in Les Misérables 2012) as Madeline
Timothy Spall (Mr. Venus in Our Mutual Friend 1998) as Charles Cheeryble
Tom Courtenay (Mr. Dorrit in Little Dorrit) as Newman Noggs
Romola Garai (Emma in Emma 2009) as Kate
David Bradley (Riderhood in Our Mutual Friend 1998) as Madeline's father
Phil Davis (Smallweed in Bleak House 2005) as Brooker
Nathan Lane (voice of Timon in The Lion King) as Crummles
Edward Fox (Mr. Brownlow in Oliver Twist 2007) as Sir Mulberry
Alan Cumming (voice of Black Beauty in Black Beauty 1994) as Mr. Folair

...And I'm sure I've missed someone, but that's a long enough list!

Unlike the series or the book, the film is narrated by Mr. Crummles. I'm not sure what I think of this decision. On the one hand, it gives Mr. Crummles more to do. On the other, he's a minor character with no real plot significance, and the book manages just fine without him narrating it.

The opening credits are shown on a sort of puppet-stage-thing. I prefer the series' beginning, but this fits the film's more theatrical interpretation of the story.

In the first few minutes there's a completely unnecessary scene which I always skip. Come to think of it, you can skip the whole opening narration without missing anything. The story proper only begins when the Nicklebys arrive in London.

In this version Mrs. Nickleby and her children visit Ralph, instead of him visiting them. Why bother making such a minor change? Did the director just want to show those creepy stuffed birds in Ralph's house? Madeleine Bray also makes her first appearance here. I'm pretty sure in the book she never even met Ralph until he tried to force her to marry that snake Gride (who's conspicuous by his absence in the film).

Nicholas, Kate and Mrs. Nickleby, with Newman Noggs in the background.

Ralph Nickleby

Film!Ralph doesn't make such an immediately villainous impression as series!Ralph. It might be because I can't help thinking of The Sound of Music when I see film!Ralph, while series!Ralph only makes me think of Mr. Tulkinghorn. Actually, no one makes much impression at first. Mrs. Nickleby isn't as whiny and silly as her book counterpart, while Nicholas and Kate fade into the background until they speak.

Squeers's first appearance was another disappointment. I was expecting someone as vile, repulsive and barely human as book-and-series!Squeers. Instead, film!Squeers looks almost normal... except for his eye. That's as hideous as in the series.

Squeers and Nicholas

The film's music was just average at first, but it improves later on. I was surprised to find I quite liked it after a while.

This adaptation is very... sanitised might be the best word. The book and the series were pretty grim. Dotheboys Hall and the Squeers were absolutely revolting. In the film, they're still evil and disgusting, but the sheer brutality, horror and soul-crushing misery of the school -- to say nothing of the nausea induced by the Squeerses -- is considerably lessened.

Mrs. Squeers in the series could induce "AAAAAHHHHH! KILL IT! KILL IT WITH FIRE!" reactions in viewers simply by appearing. Here her first appearance only made me grimace. Likewise, Fanny Squeers actually looks like a person and not a walking barrel of lard.

Poor Smike is as tragic here as in the series 😭 My heart broke at the moment when Nicholas reaches for a book and Smike jumps back as if he expects to be hit 😭

Smike. Poor, poor Smike 😭😭

I don't remember Nicholas and Smike reading together in the series, but that's a change I absolutely approve of. Unfortunately that heartwarming moment quickly becomes heartbreaking when Squeers finds them and nearly throttles Smike.

Aww... and oww 😢

Nicholas beating Squeers is as awesome in the film as in the book and series. In this version Nicholas agrees to take Smike with him at once. I think I like that interpretation more than his initial hesitation in the series. (Yes, I did just say I like something in the film more than in the series. Should I hand out smelling salts in case the shock is too much for someone?)

Nicholas: "From this night forward the world shall deal by you as it does by me."

Me: *bursts into tears*

Kate's job at the Mantolinis is mentioned only in passing. Her first appearance since Nicholas left London is when Ralph introduces her to the vile Sir Mulberry Hawk. This scene is gross and horrifying in the book and series, where Hawk and his friends are roughly the same age as Kate, but the film adds a whole new level of ickiness by making Hawk as old as Ralph *shudders*

Nicholas and Smike meet the Crummles and their theatre. For some incomprehensible reason, Mrs. Crummles is played by a man. Why? Did the director think it would be funnier? After a brief stay with the theatre Nicholas learns Kate is in trouble, so he and Smike set off for London.

I cheered when Nicholas confronts Ralph. Whatever else can be said of the film, it gets the awesome moments right!

When Brooker appeared for the first time I did a double take. Surely that wasn't-- Could it be-- I checked the credits, and it was! Smallweed has apparently been "shake me up"ed so much that he's been shaken right into another of Dickens' works!

Brooker, who surprisingly never calls anyone a brimstone beast.

(People who haven't seen Bleak House must be wondering what I'm talking about. All I can say is, watch Bleak House.)

The Cheeryble brothers are the latest characters who aren't as good as their series counterparts. There's nothing wrong with them, but they just aren't as jolly and, well, cheery as I expected.

The Cheerybles

Arthur Gride is nowhere to be seen in the film. Instead Hawk tries to force Madeline to marry him. Why? Did the director want to cut down on the number of characters? Meanwhile, poor Smike is very ill 😢

Madeline

Smike's death is always heartrending 😭 I cried so much I had to stop the film because I couldn't see through the tears 😭

Why, Dickens? Why did you kill Smike?

Thank goodness Ralph gets his comeuppance! This Nicholas's behaviour in this scene is much more gleeful than series!Nicholas. I can understand his wish to repay his uncle's cruelty, but he's just lost his friend. Wouldn't he be more depressed when revealing the truth about Smike's identity? He is in the series; I can't remember how he acted in the book.

Why, of all the ways to end the film, did the director decide to bring back Crummles and his theatre? And have Crummles speak directly to the audience? That was just weird. On the bright side, Nicholas marries Madeline and Kate marries Frank (who barely appears in the film and left so little impression I didn't even remember his existence until the wedding!), and they get a happy ending in spite of all the earlier misery 😄

Nicholas and Madeline at Smike's grave 😢

As a general rule miniseries based on classic novels are better than film adaptations. Miniseries have more time to include more subplots and generally stay closer to the book. Films tend to be rushed, with an awful lot removed. I had low expectations when I started this film. I'm pleased to say it isn't as bad as I feared.

As far as Dickens adaptations go, this film is just average. Not as good as the series, but not a complete disaster.

Is it available online?: I don't think so

Rating: 6/10.

Review: Daddy-Long-Legs (novel)

No, despite what you might think, this book has nothing to do with insects.

Daddy-Long-Legs is a 1912 novel by Jean Webster. It's been adapted into five or more films, two anime, a stage play, and at least two musicals. It has a sequel, Dear Enemy, which I haven't read yet.

The story revolves around Jerusha "Judy" Abbott, an orphan who is put through college by an anonymous benefactor she calls "Daddy-Long-Legs". With the exception of the first chapter, the entire book is composed of Judy's letters to Daddy-Long-Legs. She fills them with many remarks about her school and schoolmates, descriptions of her holidays, and occasional comic drawings. (My favourite is the one where she's serving tea to a centipede. It makes sense in context.)

For most of the book, the epistolary style works quite well. But when the final letter comes along, it suddenly doesn't work as well. It's very unlikely Judy would tell Jervis things he himself had said and done, and it becomes an obvious case of "recounting things for the benefit of the reader". It would really have been better if the book had switched back to the third person narration of the first chapter for the ending.

But that's really the only problem I have with it. The rest of the book is hilarious, and in some ways reminds me of Anne of Green Gables. I guessed who Daddy-Long-Legs really was when Jervis took Judy to see Hamlet, so I wasn't really surprised by the ending. Doesn't make it any less cute when Judy writes her first love letter, though 😊

Judy herself is a very Anne-ish character. (A kindred spirit, as Anne herself would say.) She's grown up in an orphanage, but she still has a sense of humour and an imagination -- though a less vivid one than Anne's. Daddy-Long-Legs decided to put her through college after reading an essay she wrote. He expects her to become an author once she has an education. Judy herself isn't always sure she wants to be one, something everyone who's tried to write a book can sympathise with. But by the end of the book, she's a published author, and the reader is free to imagine her having a distinguished writing career ahead of her 😄

If you like Anne of Green Gables, you'll probably love this book!

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 10/10.

Review: Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

I've seen plenty of whodunnits. But this is the first time I've watched a film where the question is instead "who didn't do it?"

Can't say I'm a fan of this title card. It's awfully plain for a film that's full of beautiful cinematography.

Murder on the Orient Express is based on one of Agatha Christie's better-known novels. I've never read it or any of her other novels (shocking, I know), so I was one of the few people who didn't know the twist ending before I watched the film.

There's a long list of familiar faces (and actors whose names I recognised but whose other films I've never seen):
Kenneth Branagh (Lockhart in Harry Potter) as Poirot
Judi Dench (Miss Matty in Cranford) as Princess Dragomiroff
Daisy Ridley (Rey in Star Wars) as Mary
Hadley Fraser (Raoul in The Phantom of the Opera 25th Anniversary) as an unnamed soldier
Leslie Odom Jr. (Burr in Hamilton) as Dr. Arbuthnot
Johnny Depp (Jack in Pirates of the Caribbean) as Ratchett/Cassetti
Penélope Cruz (Angelica in Pirates of the Caribbean) as Pilar
Derek Jacobi (Nell's grandfather in The Old Curiosity Shop 2007) as Masterman

The story starts with Poirot solving a crime in Israel. This case has nothing to do with the main plot, but it establishes Poirot's skill as a detective and is pretty interesting to watch. I laughed when the criminal tries to escape... only to run into Poirot's walking stick 😄

Poirot

Poirot goes to Istanbul, where he gets on the Orient Express... and meets his fellow passengers, many of whom are a bit odd. (To say the least!) We get some truly beautiful scenery as the train travels towards its destination.

Some of the amazing scenery in this film.

There are also some amusing interactions between the passengers. I laughed at the "I brushed Dalia this morning." "No, you tortured my darling doggy." conversation. And I loved the scene of Poirot reading A Tale of Two Cities -- though I have to wonder what he was laughing at. Of all Dickens' books, that one's second only to Great Expectations for "fewest comical scenes". There's certainly very little that would make anyone laugh out loud in it.

The train is caught in an avalanche and stuck in place until someone comes to dig it out. That's when the inevitable happens: someone is murdered. Poirot and his friend Bouc are the only people who aren't suspects. So they start questioning the other passengers.

Why is the discovery of the murder filmed from the ceiling? It's impossible to see anyone's reactions when the camera is focused on the tops of their heads. Most of the movie is beautifully filmed, so surely they could have found a way to shoot that scene while letting the audience see the characters' faces.

Speaking of the way scenes are filmed, I'm not a fan of those bits in the dining room where the characters are seen through glass. It's blurry and disorientating. But I suppose it fits the mood of the scene.

Ratchett, the victim, was a thoroughly unpleasant man who had received threatening letters. The window to his carriage was found open. Even when I watched this for the first time and didn't know the ending, I knew the open window was a red herring. No way would a murder mystery have such a neat, easy-to-solve crime.

Poirot and Bouc examining the body. Another scene inexplicably filmed from above.

Would someone please explain what that kimono has to do with the plot? I can understand the conductor's uniform, but the kimono is just... odd.

It's revealed Ratchett was really a kidnapper and murderer named Cassetti. Poirot finds a note that shows Ratchett/Cassetti was killed by someone avenging the Armstrongs, the family Ratchett (directly and indirectly) killed.

Not only is this film a murder mystery, it's an exercise in foreign languages. Poirot speaks French several times through the film, and I was embarrassed to discover just how bad my grasp on spoken French is. It took me a long time to realise he was saying "allons-y" in the final scene 😓 On the bright side, I was astonished when I understood half of what Poirot and Schmidt said in German, without the help of subtitles. Progress!

Some of the passengers apparently set out to make themselves as suspicious as possible. What on earth was MacQueen thinking when he decided to burn evidence? All right, so he probably panicked and didn't think, but that's exactly the behaviour that will make a detective investigate even more.

I'm very impressed with everyone's acting. I don't think there's a single weak performance among the entire cast. Even character who have very few scenes or lines are completely convincing.

Poirot accuses Miss Debenham of being the murderer. Dr. Arbuthnot tries to kill him and claims he was the murderer. In the process he answers Poirot's remaining questions and lets him solve the case quicker. I spent this entire scene going "it was her-- no, him-- no, someone else-- no, both of them..." But I never expected the actual solution.

All the suspects

I love Poirot's little speech just before he solves the crime. It's suitably awesome for such a dramatic moment.

"You tell your lies and you think no one will know. But there are two people who will know. Yes, two people. Your God, and Hercule Poirot."

Almost everyone already knows who the murderers were, but still: SPOILERS!

At first I couldn't believe that literally everyone in the carriage had murdered Cassetti. But as the denouement continued, an awful lot of things began to make sense. I still don't know what was up with Miss Debenham wearing that kimono, though. It seemed to have nothing to do with the case. Were they trying to send Poirot on a wild goose chase?

In most films, twelve people who stabbed a man to death would not be the sympathetic characters. But it's impossible not to pity them. I burst into tears at the flashback to Pilar being unable to stop Ratchett kidnapping Daisy. And the tears just got worse from then on. Especially when we learn who Mrs. Hubbard really is. And when she picks up the gun... 😭

Just to make things even sadder, we get Poirot's "letter" to Colonel Armstrong. 😭😭 Even the final scene of the train slowly moving away is pretty depressing 😢 I had to laugh, though, at Poirot getting off the train only to be asked to solve another murder. He just can't get a proper holiday!

This film has very quickly become one of my favourites. I don't know how close it sticks to the novel, but it's a good film on its own. I'm impatiently waiting for the sequel. Hopefully it won't fall victim to the flaws that sequels often suffer from.

Is it available online?: I don't think so.

Rating: 9/10.

Review: The Secret Garden (novel)

Just finished rereading this book, so what better time to review it?

The Secret Garden is a 1910 novel by Frances Hodgson Burnett. It's been adapted into several films, at least two miniseries, an anime, a musical, and a opera.

The story follows Mary Lennox, a spoilt brat who's brought to live at Misselthwaite Manor after her parents die. She discovers the titular garden and learns there's a mystery about the manor. Despite being a children's book, it has some very Brontë-ish moments. Mary's first glimpse of the moors sounds like something out of Wuthering Heights, and the mysterious crying that everyone insists isn't there has echoes of Jane Eyre. These unexpectedly Gothic scenes are part of the reason I enjoy reading this book even as an adult.

I don't know anything about gardening, so I don't know how realistic it is that the garden comes back to life after years of almost total neglect, just through Mary and Dickon doing some work in it. But the scenes in the garden are so sweet and heartwarming that I don't care how plausible it is 😊

One of the things Frances Hodgson Burnett excelled at was writing child characters who are completely believable, even when they really shouldn't be. If you need proof, just read Little Lord Fauntleroy. The Secret Garden doesn't disappoint. Mary and Colin both start out as arrogant, selfish jerks who've been given their own way in everything. Instead of magically changing overnight into less obnoxious people, their character development is fairly slow. Some of it is basically caused by them annoying each other into better behaviour. And by the end, they're much more likeable characters.

Speaking of the end, this is one of the few books with a happy ending that made me burst into tears. You'll know why if you've read it.

Even though the book is written for children, it's really for everyone. No matter how old you are, you'll find something to like in this book. I think that's the judge of whether or not a book's good 😊

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 9/10.

Review: The Illusionist (2006)

It's taken more than a month to finish this review. Mainly because I wish I knew what the Dickens this film is. It's not fantasy, it's not mystery, it's not really historical drama... It's just a mess.

The best thing I can say for this film is the opening credits are pretty.

The Illusionist is a 2006 film, loosely based on a short story called "Eisenheim the Illusionist" and even more loosely based on the Mayerling incident.

I only recognised three actors:
Edward Norton (Bruce Banner in The Incredible Hulk 2008) as Eisenheim
Eddie Marsan (Pancks in Little Dorrit 2008) as Josef
Rufus Sewell (Lord Melbourne in Victoria 2016) as Crown Prince Leopold (a fictionalised version of Crown Prince Rudolf -- yes, the one in Elisabeth -- who for some reason shares a name with Rudolf's father-in-law)

The film starts near the end, and tells the rest of the story by flashbacks. The plot revolves around a supposed magician named Eisenheim. Supposedly he's able to conjure up the spirits of the dead. A glance at the film's title tells you all you need to know about how real these "spirits" are. Chief Inspector Uhl is investigating Eisenheim's non-existent powers, and reporting what he discovers to Crown Prince Leopold.

Eisenheim

Uhl

Leopold

We jump back in time to Eisenheim, as a young man, meeting Duchess Sophie von Teschen and falling in love with her. Then we jump forward fifteen years (can you tell that this film has a very disjointed time-frame?) to Eisenheim, now a magician, performing in Vienna. He isn't pretending to raise the dead yet; instead he's pretending to make an orange tree grow in an instant.

The police, who apparently have nothing better to do, are determined to find out how Eisenheim does his tricks. Leopold, who also apparently has nothing better to do, urges them on. Really? The Victorian era was obsessed with the occult. Stage magicians were a dime a dozen, some more convincing than others. All Eisenheim's tricks in the film are based on real tricks used by real stage magicians. So why this sudden frantic demand to find out how he does it? A more realistic reaction would be for them to shrug and say, "We've seen these tricks a hundred times before. Pretty convincing, though."

Eisenheim meets Sophie again. Now she's engaged to Leopold, who has a reputation for domestic abuse. I really have to question her judgement in not running as far away as possible the minute he showed any interest in her. And the reason given for him wanting to marry her -- to get power over her lands -- makes no sense. In the 19th century the holders of the Duchy of Teschen were... the Habsburgs. The family the historical Crown Prince was part of. Sophie's lands were part of the empire Rudolf's/Leopold's father ruled. In other words, the filmmakers didn't do their research 😠

Sophie

Nor did they do their research in how people behaved. An unmarried woman -- especially a noblewoman rumoured to be marrying into the freaking royal family -- would never get into a carriage with a man, unsupervised, in broad daylight. Not even if he was a childhood friend. Her reputation would be in tatters within hours.

Eisenheim humiliates Leopold in front of a group of royals and aristocrats. This infuriates Leopold, so he orders Uhl to stop Eisenheim's shows. Talk about an overreaction. Assuming the film places Leopold's death in 1889 like Rudolf's, this is set in the late 1880s, when Austria-Hungary was busy forging alliances to fend off Russia. It's just possible the Crown Prince might have had a few more important things to think of than a magician's tricks.

The lack of research becomes more and more obvious. Sophie apparently follows Eisenheim to a farm house (how did no one notice her going there?) where they sleep together. No, no, no. A woman's reputation could be ruined by the slightest insinuation of improper conduct. There was plenty of immorality, but no woman in her right mind would have made it so obvious. Not unless she wanted to be labelled a whore and barred from polite society forever. This film falls victim to an all-too-common and usually fatal mistake: "historical setting, modern characters". In other words, the characters have the morals and attitudes of the 21st century, but are in a story set in the past. It's a mistake that's guaranteed to infuriate all viewers with any knowledge of history.

Eisenheim and Sophie now go out of their way to be as obvious about their relationship as possible. Uhl is spying on them, and reports all of this to Leopold. Sophie and Leopold have an argument that apparently ends with Leopold murdering Sophie. This is supposed to shock the viewer. I'd long since lost any sympathy or interest in any of the characters, so my reaction was basically, "Please let this end soon".

Unfortunately, there's still almost an hour to go. Does the film improve in that hour? ...No.

Eisenheim starts his "raising the dead" trick to contact Sophie. Her "ghost" accuses Leopold of murdering her. Uhl investigates, and finds what looks like proof of the murder. He confronts Leopold about it. Word of the murder has already reached the Emperor, so Leopold commits suicide. If the film had ended there, it would have been an underwhelming mess. But then someone decided to throw in a plot twist that turns the main characters into the villains.

All Eisenheim's tricks were fakes. That was easy to see coming. Sophie isn't actually dead. Also easy to see coming. Sophie and Eisenheim went to an awful lot of trouble to frame Leopold for a murder that never even happened, which led to his death. What. The viewer is supposed to see this as okay, because Leopold was the villain and a complete jerk. Yeah, he was, but he was still framed for a fictional crime and ended up killing himself because of it. True, they couldn't have known he'd do that, but they knew they were destroying his life with a false accusation. That plot twist makes Eisenheim and Sophie as bad as he was. Yet the film portrays them as the good guys. Talk about protagonist-centred morality.

Overall the film is a fine example of wasted potential. It could have been an interesting look at how 19th century magicians faked their tricks. Or it could have been a fictionalised retelling of the Mayerling incident. With more research it could have been both. But someone decided to smash the two plots together while doing as little research as possible, with disastrous results.

Is it available online?: I don't think so.

Rating: 2/10. It would be 1/10, but the tricks are cool to look at even if the rest of the film is dull, so I'm giving it an extra point.

Review: Elisabeth das Musical (Vienna, 1992)

Stage musicals, more than any other form of entertainment, are prone to changing dramatically over the years. Things are added or removed between productions, and within twenty years you can end up with something that looks nothing like the first production. Elisabeth is a perfect example of this.

This version doesn't have a title-card, so here, have the Original Cast Recording cover instead.

This is a filmed version of a dress rehearsal for Elisabeth's original production. It's not as polished as the 2005 version, which was an actual filmed performance, but it gives a pretty good idea of how the original version was performed.

I recognised only the main two actors:
Pia Douwes (Mrs. Danvers in Rebecca das Musical) as Elisabeth
Uwe Kröger (Colloredo in Mozart! das Musical 1999) as Death

First things first. I like the overlapping-lines bit in the prologue where Elisabeth's relatives sing one line while the ensemble sing a different one. (Is there a technical name for that?) No idea why it was removed from most later German versions.

Death's costume in the prologue is as ridiculous as in the 2005 version. Was the costume designer drunk? Or did they sincerely believe that nothing screams "personification of Death" quite like "frilly lacy whatever-that-thing-is"?

Death, with Lucheni in the background. I try not to look at that "costume", but it's... hard to ignore 😣

Elisabeth makes her first appearance and falls to her death... and Death. They fall in love at first sight. Does anyone think this will end well? Surprise! It doesn't. Elisabeth meets Franz Joseph and falls in love with him.

Sophie, Franz Joseph, and some rather ghoulish-looking courtiers.

What on earth is that eagle thing? It looks like something you'd find in an amusement park, and it's certainly not historically accurate. This is just one of the many weird things scattered through this production.

What better setting for a romantic duet than something that looks like it's borrowed from a horror movie set in a funfair?

I'm not a fan of the Vienna stagings of the wedding. The puppet-like dancing? Yes, it's suitably eerie. The "wedding clothes" that look like plastic bags? No, no, a thousand times no. It's not only ugly, it looks silly.

Elisabeth, wearing a not-at-all accurate "wedding dress". All right, so Empress Elisabeth's real wedding dress is lost and no one knows exactly what it looked like. But I think it's safe to say it wasn't made of plastic! Was this really the best the costume department could do?

But on the bright side, I like Death and his angels rising out of the floor before "Der letzte Tanz". That's much more impressive than some later versions, where they just walk onstage. Speaking of "Der letzte Tanz", this is my favourite version of it ever. It's also one of the worst ear worms I've ever had stuck in my head.

The picture isn't the clearest, but that's Franz Joseph and Elisabeth in the left corner, and Death reaching out to Elisabeth.

The lighting is much better here than in the 2005 DVD, but why is everything so blue? Blue sets, blue lights, blue costumes (even when they're clearly not blue), even bluish actors... Either the director really loved blue, or something went badly wrong with the camera.

Ignoring the blueness, "Ich gehör nur mir" is one of the most awesome songs in musical theatre, and this is one of the most awesome renditions of it.

"Denn iiiiiiiich! Gehör! Nur miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiir!"

The scene where Elisabeth's daughter dies is very eerie. This Death is much more inhuman and emotionless than 2005!Death, and the way he stares at Elisabeth after she sees her daughter's body is downright terrifying. Less jealous love interest, more supernatural creature unable to understand her grief.

One of the problems with the way this is filmed is how the camera focuses on one part of the stage and doesn't show the rest of it. During the second half of "Elisabeth, mach auf mein Engel", the camera stays on Elisabeth for most of it and only briefly shows Death. So without knowledge of other productions, you'll have no idea where Death is on the stage. Not the best decision there, editors.

This version of "Ich will dir nur sagen" doesn't include Death's part of the song. Apparently that was only added later. Very disappointing 😒 On the bright side, Elisabeth's dress is great.

Act I was much less polished than later versions. I'm sorry to say it, but Act II is a mess.

To start with, "Wenn ich tanzen will" is missing. It wouldn't be written until ten years later. The show jumps straight from "Éljen" to "Mama, wo bist du?". Then, for some reason known only to the choreographer, "Nichts, nichts, gar nichts" ends in... The YouTube description calls it a "chaotic dance sequence", and that's the only way to describe it. Why? Goodness knows.

Some Deaths are disturbingly gleeful when they tell Elisabeth about Franz Joseph's adultery. Some are more cold about it. And then there's this Death, who sounds downright bored until Elisabeth considers suicide. I'm not sure which portrayal I prefer, but this is one time when Death being emotionless is less "cold and distant" and more "just plain indifferent". He's in love with Elisabeth; shouldn't he show some emotion? Even if it's just triumphing over his rival's sin?

And we briefly dive into near-2005 levels of poor lighting, too.

Rudolf's subplot in the Vienna stagings makes very little sense to anyone who hasn't done an in-depth study of 19th century Austrian history. He appears as an adult for the first time immediately before "Die Schatten werden länger", sings a duet with Death even though there's no explanation of what he's afraid of, and then disappears from the story until he goes to Elisabeth, is turned away, and kills himself. It's exactly as confusing as it sounds.

Rudolf asking Elisabeth for help

But not even the mishandling of his subplot can make his death any less tragic 😭

The heartbreak only gets worse from then on. (And it was hardly a jolly, cheerful show before!) We get a very depressing "Boote in der Nacht", a chilling "Am Deck der sinkenden Welt" (side note: I like how the platform literally sinks at the end of the song), and then an even more depressing "Der Schleier fällt". I'm still not a fan of Death basically dropping Elisabeth on the ground after he kisses her. That's a terribly underwhelming ending.

It took me a long time to realise that thing outlined in white is meant to be Elisabeth's coffin.

Despite what you might have thought from my sarcasm, I really do like this production. It's a decent rendition of the story, and an interesting look at where the show started. But it just isn't as complete as later productions, nor does the plot make as much sense without the songs that were added later. It's a good introduction to Elisabeth, though, and well worth watching!

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube with English subtitles.

Rating: 7/10.

Review: The Way We Live Now (2001) (Episodes 3 & 4)

Review of the first two episodes here.

Episode two ended with Roger seeing Paul with Mrs. Hurtle. Episode three starts with Marie on a train, going to elope with Felix, while Felix is busy gambling with his friends.

I lost all sympathy for Paul when he agreed to spend the night with Mrs. Hurtle. He's said repeatedly that he loves Hetta and doesn't love Mrs. Hurtle, and then he goes and betrays Hetta 😠

Marie is arrested for stealing her father's cheque and taken back to her father's. Melmotte is a villain and a scumbag, but I have to agree with him when he tells Marie that Felix doesn't love her. Melmotte, meanwhile, is planning to run for Parliament.

Marie's arrest. (Well, technically it's not an arrest. More like bringing her home under threat of being arrested.)

Roger goes to see Mrs. Hurtle. He asks if there is anything between her and Paul. She tells him there is. Then Roger sees Ruby, and tells John, the man she was supposed to marry, where she is. One of Felix's friends suggests he goes abroad, so he goes to Ruby and offers to take her with him. But first he has to get money.

Paul arrives in Mexico and learns that none of Melmotte's money has reached the railway works. Meanwhile, Melmotte is still trying to get into Parliament. And Mr. Brehgert is starting to fall in love with Georgiana. Terrible idea.

Mr. Brehgert and Georgiana

Ruby's aunt and Mrs. Hurtle find out about Felix's plan to take her abroad, and they order him to marry her. Of course Felix has no intention of marrying her. Marie, unaware of all this, still wants to marry him. I see a lot of misery ahead for her.

Paul decides to expose Melmotte as a fraud. He goes to Mr. Alf, who owns a newspaper, and tells him everything. Well, at least he's doing the right thing in this case. Meanwhile, Hetta goes to Marie and tells her the truth about Felix. I don't know who I feel sorrier for: Marie, for having to hear the man she loves only wants her money, or Hetta, for having to give Marie such news 😢 Then Hetta says she's sure Paul never lies to her, and ouch, the cruel irony 😭

Mr. Brehgert and Georgiana get engaged. Her father is infuriated to learn his daughter is engaged to a Jewish man who's much older than her. Georgiana refuses to break off the engagement. Good for her, but considering how arrogant and money-mad she's shown herself to be, I'm not sure this will be a happy marriage.

Episode three ends with Paul returning and proposing to Hetta. Felix refuses his consent and tells her about Mrs. Hurtle. Episode four begins with Melmotte being elected to Parliament, and Hetta breaking her engagement with Paul. I agree completely with Hetta. Paul's behaviour has been underhanded and immoral, and she's much better off without him.

Melmotte in Parliament

Hetta breaking off the engagement

Just when I thought Felix couldn't possibly get any worse, he tries to rape Ruby. John arrives in time to save her and gives Felix a good hiding. Serves the bastard right!

Melmotte's financial scams, past and present, are now well-known and in many papers. I cheered when Mr. Alf gave Melmotte a piece of his mind. "The only thing you move is money, from the pockets of other men into your own!"

Hetta goes to see Mrs. Hurtle, who tells her about spending the night with Paul. Really, Hetta, it's time you gave up on him. He's not worthy of you.

Melmotte owes Mr. Brehgert money that he refuses to pay. Georgiana is furious to learn that Mr. Brehgert has very little money, and after an argument he decides to break the engagement off. I feel sorry for both of them -- more for him than for her, because she's a mercenary little brat -- but this is probably the best decision under the circumstances. That marriage would have been a disaster.

😔

Melmotte tries to pay some of his debts with money he gave to Marie. She refuses to give him any of her money. She gives her father a piece of her mind. Neither of them is likeable, but I side with Marie in this.

Mrs. Hurtle decides to give up on Paul, and tells Hetta so. Now she says that Paul didn't spend the night with her, even when all the evidence suggests he did.

Is this the only dress Mrs. Hurtle owns? She's spent most of the series wearing it.

The Melmottes are ruined and exposed as frauds. Melmotte is faced with total disgrace and an angry mob, so he commits suicide. This is an incredibly creepy scene, with the shots of his empty house while his maniacal laughter is heard in the distance.

Paul's business partner Mr. Fisker comes to tell Paul that the railway will be built anyway, in spite of Melmotte's fraud. Paul and Hetta get married, which is a real disappointment. Nothing he's done in the whole series shows he's good enough for her. She would have been much better off without him.

That final scene of Felix (who didn't get nearly enough comeuppance) is a very disappointing end to the series. It shows that he really didn't suffer much for his actions at all, and that he's still the scum of the earth. It would have been much better if they'd cut that scene and ended the series with Marie Melmotte closing the doors. That was much more dramatic and sombre.

So, what's my overall opinion? The Way We Live Now is one of the forgotten period dramas. You won't see many people talk about it unless they're die-hard fans of period drama. I can see why. It isn't atrocious like Pride and Prejudice (2005). It isn't outstanding like Bleak House (2005). It's just mediocre.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Dailymotion. The link goes to episode one, but all the episodes are available there.

Rating of these episodes: 5/10.

Overall rating: 5/10.

Review: The Way We Live Now (2001) (Episodes 1 & 2)

I'd never heard of this series or the book it's based on until I searched for BBC period dramas I hadn't seen. On the one hand, this meant I had no preconceived ideas of how the story should be adapted. On the other, it meant I didn't know the story at all.

This title-card looks better suited to a science fiction film than a period drama. Who designed this, and what were they thinking? On the bright side, the music is good.

The Way We Live Now is based on an 1875 novel by Anthony Trollope. It has a practically Dickensian amount of subplots, but the main story revolves around a financial scam.

There's a long list of familiar actors:
David Suchet (the title character in Poirot) as Melmotte
Miranda Otto (Éowyn in The Lord of the Rings) as Mrs. Hurtle
Matthew Macfadyen (Arthur in Little Dorrit 2008) as Sir Felix
Lilo Baur (Hortense in Bleak House 2005) as a maid (again!) (though a less murderous one this time)
Cillian Murphy (Tommy Shelby in Peaky Blinders) as Paul Montague
Anne-Marie Duff (voice of Hyzenthlay in Watership Down 2018) as Georgiana
Shirley Henderson (Moaning Myrtle in Harry Potter) as Marie Melmotte
Joanna David (Mrs. Gardiner in Pride and Prejudice 1995) as Lady Pomona Longestaffe
Douglas Hodge (Lydgate in Middlemarch 1994) as Roger Carbury
David Bradley (Riderhood in Our Mutual Friend 1998) as Mr. Broune
Jim Carter (Captain Brown in Cranford) as Mr. Brehgert
Fenella Woolgar (Arabella in He Knew He Was Right) as Lady Julia
Richard Cant (Mercury in Bleak House 2005) as Adolphus "Dolly" Longestaffe
Toby Jones (Quilp in The Old Curiosity Shop 2007) as Squercum

The Melmottes have just arrived in London. Augustus Melmotte, a financier, is supposed to be enormously rich, but there are rumours he was involved in a failed bank before. This doesn't stop people flocking to give him their money. Nor does it stop scoundrels plotting to marry Melmotte's daughter Marie for her money.

The very sinister Mr. Melmotte

Meanwhile, we meet the Carbury family. Lady Carbury is an aspiring but talentless writer who is rapidly running out of money through her own and and her son's extravagance; Sir Felix, the aforementioned son, is a gambling spendthrift who wouldn't know a moral if he fell over it; and Hetta, his sister, is disgusted with her family's behaviour but can do nothing about it.

The nauseating Sir Felix and equally nauseating Lady Carbury

Hetta

Felix plans to marry Marie Melmotte. His wretched mother encourages him in it and gives him money to help him. Hetta is appalled, but her family refuse to listen. Soon afterwards they go to visit their cousin Roger. He has somewhat more sense than Lady Carbury or Felix, but he's also in love with Hetta despite being about twenty years older than her. Lady Carbury wants Hetta to marry Roger because he's rich, with no regard for what Hetta wants.

Lady Carbury and Roger

Side note: I'm not a fan of the way the hunting scene is filmed. It jumps around so much and the camera is so shaky that it makes me feel dizzy.

Roger has a ward, Paul Montague, who falls in love at first sight with Hetta... and she falls in love with him. Paul has been living in America and is interested in engineering. He's trying to raise money to build a railway between America and Mexico. Naturally, he becomes one of the many people to get involved in Melmotte's schemes.

Hetta and Paul

It's a pretty grim scene, but I can't help laughing when Mrs. Melmotte covers her ears when her husband and stepdaughter are yelling at each other.

Well, that's one way to cope with a dysfunctional family! 😆

The Carburys and Paul are invited to a ball the Melmottes are hosting. While there, Paul and Hetta become closer, and Felix meets Marie. The scene of Paul and Hetta dancing together (several times) is cute, but in hindsight it becomes depressing. I liked Paul the first time I saw this scene, but after learning certain things about his past, I don't like him nearly as much.

Marie

Among the other things that happen at the ball, we get an entirely unnecessary scene of Felix and Marie kissing, and learn that a prince is among the Melmotte's many guests. There's a comical scene of Mrs. Melmotte being completely caught off-guard when the prince asks her to dance 😄

Roger proposes to Hetta. She refuses him, to her mother's disgust. Roger goes and confronts Felix about his spending. This is one of the few times I agree with Roger. After that he tries to warn Paul away from getting involved with Melmotte -- which I approve of -- and from courting Hetta -- which I don't approve of, and which made me despise Roger.

Side note about the railway: no idea if this is from the original novel or not, but I find it very hard to believe Salt Lake City would be considered as a good place to build a railway station. This was a time when Salt Lake City and its inhabitants were basically outlaws. What were Paul and his friends thinking?

Melmotte plans to use Paul's railway to steal other people's money. Paul hasn't a clue about this... yet. Felix becomes one of the directors of Paul's railway. I face-palmed when he said he was good with money, and laughed when Hetta said he was good at losing it.

Marie tells Felix that Mrs. Melmotte isn't her mother, and that her real mother disappeared mysteriously. Creeeepy. Than as if Felix isn't enough of a scumbag, we learn that while meeting Marie, he's also involved with another girl, Ruby, who lives on Roger's estate. There's a scene with the two of them that I always skip.

The music in this series is some of the eeriest I've ever heard in period drama. Especially that opera-ish wailing towards the end of episode one.

At the start of episode two, we learn that Paul was once engaged to an American widow, Mrs. Hurtle. She's followed him to England to force him to marry her. Paul tells her he loves another woman, but she refuses to let him out of the engagement.

Paul and Mrs. Hurtle.

(When she first appeared I knew I'd seen her somewhere before. Half-way through the episode I realised she was Éowyn. Of all people!)

The Carburys are getting deeply into debt. Lady Carbury and Felix only make things worse, and Hetta can't stop them. I sympathise with Hetta's anger, but I find it very hard to believe a 19th century upper-class woman would ever outright compare a loveless marriage to prostitution. Not only was that a taboo subject, but loveless marriages were the norm for women like Hetta. It's only quite recently than marrying for love has become the rule rather than the exception, so Hetta's attitude is rather anachronistic.

Shares in the railway company are going up and up. Melmotte encourages more and more people to buy them. Paul begins to have some worries about this scheme, especially when he suspects none of the money is being used to build the railway.

Melmotte finds out about Felix and Marie's "engagement". He isn't happy, especially because Felix has no money. I rolled my eyes when Felix said he was a gentleman. Yeah, suuuuuure you are, Felix.

I laughed at the scene where Georgiana (who reminds me a great deal of Fanny Thornton in North and South) yelled at her father for not taking her to London, and her father simply held his newspaper up to his face and ignored her.

Georgiana Longestaffe, one of this series' many obnoxious brats.

Felix is still seeing Ruby, whose grandfather wants her to marry another man. She refuses John, the other man, so her grandfather beats her. Ruby runs away and goes to London to find Felix. I'm just waiting for the moment when Ruby and Marie find out about each other. It'll be exactly what Felix deserves. Less than he deserves, actually.

Ruby

Marie seems to be both very childish and slightly unhinged. I'm torn between feeling sorry for her and being slightly afraid of her.

Ruby has taken lodgings in the same place where Mrs. Hurtle is staying, and she sees Paul with Mrs. Hurtle. Mrs. Hurtle told her they're engaged. I can already see where this is going.

Paul is becoming more and more suspicious of Melmotte. He decides to investigate by going to Mexico. Hetta admits she loves Paul. She still doesn't know about Mrs. Hurtle. No way can this end well.

Georgiana, the sister of Felix's friend, is staying with the Melmottes, where she meets Mr. Brehgert -- a banker and one of the few decent, likeable characters in this series. Or maybe I'm immediately prejudiced in his favour because I can't see him without thinking of Captain Brown. Unfortunately, he's yet another person dragged into Melmotte's web.

Mr. Brehgert at one of the Melmottes' parties

Marie plans to elope with Felix. She steals a cheque from her father to pay for their boat fare. Meanwhile, Mrs. Hurtle tries to convince Paul to take her with him. And Ruby tells Felix she's seen Paul with Mrs. Hurtle.

Episode two ends with Marie preparing for the elopement, and Felix reluctantly going along with it. And then Roger sees Paul with Mrs. Hurtle. Paul tries to explain. Roger doesn't believe him. I don't like Roger, but I have to agree with him when he says Hetta won't want to be dragged into this mess. I'm not too fond of Paul either, but I definitely agree with him when he says Hetta is embarrassed and disgusted by Roger's interest in her.

My overall opinion? ...I haven't decided yet. It's not terrible, but it's not outstanding. There are some scenes I wish weren't in it and some characters I detest, but I can still watch it without cringing. We'll have to wait and see if the next two episodes change my opinion 😊

Rating: 5/10.

Review of the next two episodes here.