We've Got Them Just Where They Want Us

As far back as I can remember, I have loved Star Trek. In combined celebration and trepidation for the new Star Trek movie due out this May (and a fortuitous and joy-bringing birthday present from my husband), I have decided to re-watch and re-evaluate all of the previous Star Trek films. I expect that there may be intermittent reviews of other kinds of films mixed in, but I will see and review all of them, in order, before seeing the new Star Trek film in May.

And, so, without further ado:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

ST:TMP (if you'll allow it) and the following Star Trek films boast ensemble casts, so I hope you will forgive the vast lists of stars that are about to ensue. The film stars the regular crew from the original series: William Shatner (James T. Kirk), Leonard Nimoy (Spock), DeForest Kelley (Leonard "Bones" McCoy), George Takei (Hikaru Sulu), James Doohan (Mongomery "Scotty" Scott), Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov), Nichelle Nichols (Nyota Uhura), and Majel Barrett (Christine Chapel). A couple of additional and new crew members join them: Stephen Collins (Willard Decker) and Persis Khambatta (Ilia). The film was directed by Robert Wise (who I was surprised to discover directed West Side Story and The Sound of Music, among others - some credentials!), and was released in 1979.

The movie takes place a few years after the end of the series. The crew has separated - Kirk has been promoted to Admiral, and is now Chief of Starfleet Operations, Spock has gone home to Vulcan to pursue spiritual and logical enlightenment, and Bones has retired (and, if the costume/beard are any indication, has become an old hippie). Discontented with his desk job, Kirk reclaims command of the Enterprise from Captain Decker (Collins), much to Decker's chagrin, and effectively brings the rest of the crew out of retirement. Ilia joins the crew, and a spark passes between her and Decker; they have not only met before, but were in love.

The Enterprise is commissioned to investigate a destructive and unresponsive entity that is on a direct course to Earth. When the Enterprise encounters the object, Spock figures out that the object is communicating at a much faster rate than they could pick up regularly, and sends a friendship message at that speed. The entity responds with its own probe, which promptly abducts Ilia, and then returns her bereft of her humanity (for lack of a better term, given that she is an alien), and her personality stored as mere data. Ilia-as-probe searches the ship, seeking to investigate these "inferior carbon-based life forms." The crew discovers from Ilia that the being is called V'ger, and is seeking its Creator. It seeks to destroy the carbon-based life forms on Earth when its Creator doesn't respond, but Kirk convinces V'ger that he knows why the Creator hasn't responded, completely bluffing. V'ger calls off the attack, and has Ilia bring in Kirk, Spock, Decker, and McCoy to see V'ger in person, per Kirk's demand.

Once they are inside the much larger vessel, Kirk et al realize that V'ger is, in fact, Voyager 6 - a fictional satellite based on the Voyager 1 and 2 models that launched in the 1970s to take pictures and gather data. They realize that V'ger is seeking its Creator in order to not only report back, but also to evolve - to join with the Creator. V'ger had encountered a machine planet in its travels that built the exterior structure for it, and encouraged its sentience by giving it more knowledge. Decker more than happily complies with V'ger's request, taking the role of the Creator. Consequently, he finally gets to consummate his affection with Ilia. V'ger evolves into bright lights (and, seemingly, into a higher plane of existence), and Kirk and crew depart to continue their exploration "Out there...thataway."

Given the simplistic plot, this film is far too long. Clocking in at 132 minutes (yes, that's two hours and 12 minutes), this movie is (with respect and credit due to my dad, who explained it perfectly) a one-hour episode stretched out far too long. Given the recent (at the time) release of Star Wars, I can understand that they wanted to flaunt their newly acquired special effects and makeup budgets and capabilities. Thus we have Klingons that never appear again, encountering V'ger at the beginning of the film. ("Hey, Roy, we got some more money in the makeup budget! Let's throw some Klingons in there just for laughs!") In addition, many 10-15 minute long sequences of the ship flying through space could have easily been cut.

But I discovered something when I was watching the behind-the-scenes documentaries. It turns out that Dad's assertion was spot on: the film was not intended to be a film at all. The story was supposed to be the pilot episode for Star Trek: Phase 2 - a television series that never came to pass. Did you get that? This two-hour-and-twelve-minute long movie was supposed to be and was written as a one-hour television show! Ridiculous.

Perhaps I am being a bit harsh. This movie was also a love note to the fans - Star Trek back with new content after going off the air for 10 years. It was going to be a box-office hit no matter the plot - just like the Star Wars prequels were (terrible movies, but people paid through the nose to see them) and like the new Star Trek movie will be. I have my doubts about the quality of the film (albeit unfounded - I've only seen one trailer, and it looked awesome), but I still intend to see it in theaters. There is a loyalty in Star Trek fans that not even a travesty like Star Trek: Enterprise can shatter. This movie must have been highly anticipated and quite beloved.

In fact, even as I watch this with a 30-year shield and 9 other (better, with the possible exception of Star Trek V) Star Trek movies and four more serieses under my belt, I feel a certain tug at my heartstrings. This is Star Trek, after all. It isn't a good plot, the costumes and sets are bland in color and style, and the characters are incredibly hokey, but it still has a few saving graces besides its good name and inexplicable pull.

(1) The music. The main theme of the film, written by Jerry Goldsmith, is perfect. It was re-used and slightly adjusted for Star Trek: The Next Generation, so has nostalgic value for me. It is also a wonderful theme in and of itself - majestic, triumphant, joyful, and just the tiniest bit sad.

(2) Occasional perfect bits of dialogue. There are a few pieces of dialogue that speak completely to the characters. For example, when the non-Ilia probe (a beam of rather menacing-looking light) is searching the bridge, Kirk says, "Don't interfere with it," Checkov replies, "AbsoLUTely I will not interfere with it!!" Another good piece of dialogue is when Decker exclaims with naivety while being drawn inside V'ger, "Forward motion, sir!" Spock dismissively deadpans, "Tractor beam." (Brilliant!) Finally, when Bones and Spock meet again, Spock makes some caustic remark, and Bones says, "Spock, you haven't changed a bit. You're just as warm and sociable as ever."

(3) The fact that they let women be promoted into traditionally male roles. Christine Chapel (Barrett), who was a nurse in the series, has become a doctor in the years since their last mission.

In effect, unless you are a Star Trek fan and are watching it for its history and nostalgia, I would suggest to skipping to one hour and forty-five minutes into the movie. As long as you have a brief summary of what comes before, you're set. The last half-hour of this film is the best and fastest-moving part of it.

Tune in soon for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan!!

I Pronounce You Man and Wife. Proceed With the Execution.

My next film is one that I had seen as a child, and decided to give another change: The African Queen.  This movie was made in 1951, and stars Katharine Hepburn (need I say more?) and Humphrey Bogart (probably best known for his role in Casablanca.  The film was directed by John Huston (who also directed Annie and The Maltese Falcon).

The African Queen takes place in 1914, in German East Africa.  A missionary, Samuel Sayer (Robert Morely), and his sister, Rose (Hepburn), live with and preach to a small village of Africans.  Once World War I begins, German soldiers come to the village, set fire to the huts, and round up the Africans, taking them away to be soldiers.  Samuel and Rose are not hurt at all, and their house is not disturbed, but the church is burned to the ground.  Samuel goes mad because of the chaos, and dies quickly.  Rose is alone in the village.

Charlie Allnut (Bogart), a riverboat captain and supplies dealer, comes by the village to check on them the day Samuel dies.  Finding Rose alone, he takes her with him to his riverboat - the African Queen.  Rose suggests that they go down the river to the lake, in order to get out of the area.   Charlie informs her that the lake is held by a German warship called the Louisa.  Rose figures out a way to torpedo the Louisa, using the African Queen, and convinces Charlie to go with the plan.  They travel down the river, encounter great hardships, and fall in love.  At the end, they are captured by the Germans before they can blow up the Louisa, but ask the ship captain to marry them before they are hung.  He does, and just before they are killed, the formerly submerged African Queen surfaces and blows up the Louisa.  Charlie and Rose dive off the ship, and presumably swim to safety.

There were many things about The African Queen that frustrated me.  The opening credits of this movie are awful - two minutes of floating under branches, looking up at the sky, and hearing monkeys.  It almost made me want to turn off the movie in disgust.  The next three minutes are also purely painful - out of tune, no word singing of a hymn.  In fact, almost the entire movie seems campy, predictable, and unrealistic.

For some reason, I have never been fond of Humphrey Bogart.  I suppose I don't see him as the best of leading men.  He is neither handsome, nor charismatic - he doesn't even have a sexy voice, or even an accent!  In this, I am no more impressed.  Hepburn, however, disappointed me in this movie.  For the first half of the film, her character is bland and stark.  Her attire - though appropriate for the time period they are depicting - is high collared and must have been stifling to her.  Her fire and pizzaz don't really shine through until two different scenes.  One is when she pours all of Charlie's gin overboard after an argument (sort of reminded me of Elizabeth Swann burning all of Jack Sparrow's rum in Pirates of the Caribbean).  The other is the scene after they have successfully traversed the rapids.  She says, "I never dreamed that any mere physical experience could be so stimulating!"

I did like a couple of details about the film.  I happened to notice that the missionary church was a Methodist one, which explained in and of itself Rose's obvious distaste for alcohol.  I thought that was quite true to form, and enjoyed that little tidbit.  In addition, I liked the comment after the ship captain married them - see the quote in the title for that.

I do not recommend this film.  It is such an average plot, and the actors do not rise above the story to make it more intriguing.  The film seemed endless and quite dull for the most part.  Pick a different Hepburn movie!  Then again, maybe I should give "Bogey" another chance someday...

They Know When They Are Loved For Themselves

Please excuse my extended absence from writing my blog.  The holidays got WAY more crazy than I expected, but I'm ready to jump back in!

And I do with both feet, watching Anastasia - a film made in 1956, starring Ingrid Bergman (of The Inn of the Sixth Happiness and The Bells of Saint Mary, among others) and Yul Brynner (best known to me for his amazing role in The King and I), and Helen Hayes.  Anastasia was directed by Anatole Litvak.

To fully understand this film, one must first know the historical background of this story.  The Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna was the youngest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia.  Tsar Nicholas II was the last Russian czar, and was overthrown in revolt in 1918.  At that time, the Tsar and his entire immediate family were taken prisoner and eventually shot by a firing squad.  Although it was reported that every member of the family was dead, rumors persisted for decades that Anastasia had somehow survived this great horror.  Several impostors came forward, trying to claim that they were the lost princess.  The most famous of these was Anna Anderson.  While it was eventually decided that she was not Anastasia after all, her claim persisted the longest.

This film plays on Anna Anderson's claim.  Although the circumstances of the film are quite different from that of real life, the basic idea is the same.  General Bounine (Brynner) - a formerly high-ranking general for the Russian Empire - and his associates had spent several years seeking out women with a reasonable resemblance to Anastasia, with the hopes of having her officially recognized by her grandmother, the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna (Hayes).  Once recognized, she would gain her impressively large inheritance, and presumably share it with Bounine and his associates.  Having heard a rumor that a woman recently released from an asylum had claimed that she was Anastasia, Bounine pursues the woman, and quickly persuades her that she would be able to confirm her identity if she works with them.  Anna (Bergman) is not interested in money or fame, but only wants to figure out which of her very disjointed memories is reality.

After a great deal of training and time, Anna and Bounine make their way to Copenhagen, where the Empress currently resides.  The two attempt several times to see the Empress, but, overwhelmed with heartache and false promises, the Empress refuses to see anyone claiming to be one of the dead Romanovs.  They are able to meet with the greedy Prince Paul von Haraldburg - Anastasia's cousin and formerly betrothed - who is interested in also gaining a piece of the inheritance.  Anna responds warmly to the false show of affection that Paul shows her, having lived so long with so little love.

After a great deal of time, the Empress realizes that she may be too stubborn, and goes to see Anna, who, by this time, has begun to believe that she is really and truly Anastasia.  The Empress flutters between being hurt and sympathetic in their meeting, and finally decides that she is Anastasia when the Empress hears Anna cough because she is frightened - as Anastasia always used to do when she was a child.  

When they are ready to declare her as the Duchess, Bounine balks at being part of the ceremony.  Refusing to say it aloud, he still goes to the Empress and suggests that he is no longer interested in any reward.  The Empress realizes that Bounine is in love with Anastasia, and uncomfortable with the impending engagement between Paul and Anastasia.  The Empress then speaks to Anastasia, and discovers she does not love Paul, but rather Bounine.  Placing them surreptitiously in the same room right before the ceremony, the Empress realizes that her newly-found granddaughter is lost to her again.  Indeed, when the servants go in to find Anastasia, they return with the news that she is gone, and so is Bounine.  When asked what she will tell the assembled guests, the Empress replies, "I will tell them that the play is over, now go home."

This movie gives you everything you want.  As a viewer, I really wanted Bounine and Anastasia to get together at the end, so I could not be more pleased.  In addition, I appreciated that they left the question open - was she Anastasia?  Was she not?  You are left not knowing, and I appreciate that tactfulness toward the actual story.

The costumes are both functional and lovely - when they should be simple - such as Anna wandering the streets - they are.  When they are for the ball at the end of the movie, the costumes are luxurious and fine-looking.  

An important note: Ingrid Bergman won the Oscar for Best Actress for this role - and she fully deserved it.

All-in-all, wonderful film.  It's a rags-to-riches story with the twist of leaving the lavish for the loving.  Highly recommended.  Also on the DVD copy I rented, there is a wonderful Biography program on Anastasia in the special features section that is not to be missed.

Old Marley was as Dead as a Doornail

My next version of A Christmas Carol is titled Scrooge, and was released in 1951 in England. For its U.S. release later in 1951, it was titled A Christmas Carol. It was directed by Brian Desmond Hurst and stars Alastair Sim (who many charge with being the best Scrooge) and Mervyn Johns as Bob Cratchit. This is my mother-in-law's favorite version, and I have to say, I'm getting quite fond of it.

Since I summarized the story in my last post, I will go straight into my notes.

This version is much more accurate to the book than Mickey's. This is to be expected, of course, because Mickey's was only 25 minutes, and thus had to cut for time and content. In addition, some of the more scary bits are left out. Much of the dialogue seems to be taken straight from the book. The words are so familiar, I can almost recite them.

There are many scenes in this film that expound the story, and quickly explain visually or vocally more about the situations. For example, on Christmas Eve, Scrooge eats dinner at a meager, dark restaurant. He says, "Waiter! More bread." The waiter tells him, "Ha'penny extra, sir." After considering for the tiniest moment, Scrooge replies, "No more bread." I think this is such a quick and eloquent way to explain how miserly he is - that he won't even spend a half-penny on himself for food. After Marley comes and explains to Scrooge about the chains they forge in life and wear in death, there is a horrific scene outside of Scrooge's window. Dozens of ghosts with heavy chains throw money ineffectually at a crying beggar-woman with a child. She can't see any of them, and they cannot help her. They wail in their defeat. This is truly a harrowing scene, but really presses to both Scrooge and the viewer what he could harvest in the next life.

The great joy of this film, besides the great fear and awe that Sim portrays, is his joy at finding himself still alive and whole and on Christmas morning. It seems so natural, so on the edge of madness, that I wonder if Sim ad-libbed it all. At one point, he spies a chair, grins, laughs, and then says "I must stand on my head," and proceeds to do so, sending the housemaid out of the room screaming at the top of her lungs. The whole sequence is whimsical and wonderful.

Alastair Sim is incredible. He makes you see so clearly what Scrooge feels and thinks, and isn't afraid to get a little wild and crazy in the ending. May we also experience such joy someday.

Bah Humbug!

What a lovely little way to start what I hope will be the week of A Christmas Carol! I hope to watch seven different adaptations of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol this week. There are almost twenty different film versions of this story, not including all of the television shows framed after it. Although Mickey's Christmas Carol was a television special that first aired in 1983, it still makes my list - as a true classic version of the tale. Scrooge McDuck (voiced by Alan Young) and Mickey Mouse (voiced by Wayne Allwine) star in this rendition directed by Burny Mattinson, along with a host of other recognizable Disney characters, including the classic characters and some side characters from Robin Hood, The Great Mouse Detective, and The Wind in the Willows.

In case you have escaped all knowledge of this story, I will summarize it here quickly. A miserly old businessman, Ebenezer Scrooge (Scrooge McDuck), has lost all meaning of love and goodwill, and is only interested in money. He has no mercy, no charity, and (seemingly worst of all) no Christmas spirit. His clerk, Bob Cratchit (Mickey Mouse), works for him for very small wages and very little appreciation. One Christmas, after going home, Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his old partner-in-business, Jacob Marley (Goofy). Marley warns Scrooge that, for all of his bad deeds and lack of goodwill, he will forge an heavy chain he will carry for the rest of eternity. When Scrooge, notably scared by the experience, asks Marley if there is anything he can do to stop it, Marley tells him that three Christmas Spirits will visit him that night, and that he must do as they say.

Scrooge is shaken, but refuses to believe after Marley's ghost has left. Marley was right, however, and the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future show Scrooge how he has shaped his own destiny. He will be unmourned at his death, and grave-robbers will steal from him. Scrooge's eyes are opened and he realizes his past and current wrong-doings. When he awakes on Christmas morning to find he hasn't missed everything, he is overjoyed. He gives a great deal of money to the charity workers who had approached him the day before, he visits his nephew Fred (Donald Duck) and makes merry with him, and he visits Cratchit's house, bringing toys and food for his family. Indeed, Scrooge becomes like a second father to Cratchit's poor crippled son, Tiny Tim, and never fails to keep Christmas again.

I remember this rendition scaring me as a child. I still had a little jolt of fear when I heard Goofy moan "Scrooooge!!" as the door-knocker. I guess I was kind of sheltered, but I actually like that, at one point in my life at least, I felt the fear and awe that Scrooge must have felt to have those Spirits visit him.

Mickey makes the sweetest Bob Cratchit - unassuming and dear.

While I may have the nostalgia for this that I missed for A Charlie Brown Christmas, I am very pleased and surprised that I still enjoyed it after all of these years. I recommend it for children big and small.

Maybe It Just Needs a Little Love

I should preface this by saying that I somehow didn't grow up watching A Charlie Brown Christmas. In fact, this is the first time I've ever seen it. It was written by Charles Schultz and directed by Bill Melendez. Also, I should note that this is a television special, is only 25 minutes long, and will be a short review, for that reason.

The plot is quite simple. Charlie Brown, frustrated by the rampant commercialism of the modern Christmas season, complains to Linus that he is unhappy every Christmas, despite liking the cards, presents, and decorations. Lucy, also hearing of his problem, decides that the way to fix his problem is to have him direct the Christmas play. Charlie Brown agrees, and starts to direct, but fails in organizing the group. He decides that what the play needs is a Christmas tree, and goes to a lot and buys the smallest, scrawniest, most real tree there. Everyone at the play berates him for the tree, and he explodes, asking if anyone actually knows the true meaning of Christmas. Linus takes center stage and quotes Luke 2:8-14 - the shepherds' encounter with the angels. This makes Charlie Brown feel at peace, and he goes home to decorate his tree. He tries, but the tree falls over from one bulb, and he goes away dejected. The rest of the crew has been following him, and, at Linus' suggestion, decorate the tiny tree and make it look absolutely beautiful. Charlie Brown comes back and is delighted by what he sees. The show closes with the cast singing "Hark, the Herald Angels Sing."

While I don't have the nostalgia for this TV special that would temper it to a classic, it still surprised me. The art was not very good, and the animation was choppy. The surprise came when this became my first Jesus-oriented Christmas movie (if you'll allow it) of the season. It is simple, and in its simplicity comes its meaning. I have to admit, I was quite bored the first half, but when Linus took center stage, suddenly the film began to have some sort of meaning. He drops his security blanket when he says, "Fear not, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy," and does not pick it up again until he is finished with the quote. It is interesting to see him feeling safe with something besides his blanket.

Give it to Charles Schultz to not beat around the bush when it comes to what he means to say: Christmas is too commercial, and we should be focusing on Jesus and love for our fellow man. I appreciate his forthrightness, and thus, this little story.

Sometimes Angels Rush In Where Fools Fear to Tread

I had never heard of my next movie before this Christmas season, but I wish I had: The Bishop's Wife (1947). Directed by Henry Koster (who also directed The Robe and Flower Drum Song, and several other German and American films), and starring Cary Grant (see my review on An Affair to Remember for gushing on his work), Loretta Young, and David Niven (who also played James Bond in the 1967 Casino Royale, and was in three different Pink Panther movies as Charles Lytton).

Obsessed with raising money to build a magnificent cathedral, Bishop Henry Brougham (Niven) had for too long catering only to that cause, and had become absent in his wife and daughter's lives. One night, he prays for guidance, and an angel named Dudley (Grant) appears to answer his prayer. Quickly melding into Henry's life, Dudley styles himself as Henry's new assistant, and tells no one else that he is an angel. Henry's wife, Julia (Young) and his daughter (Karolyn Grimes) take quickly to Dudley, and he to them. Henry successfully solicits funds from a wealthy widow, Mrs. Hamilton (Gladys Cooper), but she insists that the cathedral be a monument to her dead husband, and Henry, moved by his conscience, refuses.

Dudley, in the meantime, takes Julia around town - ice skating, lunch in a nice restaurant, and even buys her a new hat she had wanted. He does all of this in an attempt to renew her joy, and remind her of what her relationship with her husband had been. Henry quickly becomes jealous, and, in an attempt to regain his family from Dudley, accepts Mrs. Hamilton's terms. He confronts Dudley, telling him that he is now to leave, as Henry now has his cathedral money, and his prayer will have been answered. Dudley calmly informs him that his work is not done, but departs for the time being.

On Christmas Eve, Dudley pays a visit to Mrs. Hamilton and opens her heart. She decides that she will give all of her money to the poor and needy, and no longer build monuments for her husband. Henry also encounters Dudley, and offers to fight him for Julia. Henry says he doesn't care that he could be killed (as an angel would have far too much power for a mortal to fight), but that Julia is the most important thing in the world to him. Dudley reminds Henry that he had not prayed for a cathedral, but for guidance, and is pleased that he remembers the importance of their love over material things. Dudley leaves, taking away all memory of his existence with him. Henry and Julia are more affectionate than ever, although they're not sure why, and Henry preaches that night with a new fervor, a deeper understanding of what is important in life, and a great joy.

The movie begins beautifully - show-stoppingly so. You see children sing "Hark, the Herald Angels Sing," a nativity display, children's toys, a Salvation Army Santa, and joy filling children's faces. It would be so easy to be cynical about this first part, but it's so much better to find it dear.

I believe this is the first film that I have seen of Cary Grant's in which he is not the same character as always. While he does have a romantic lean to him, and he's still dreadfully charming; there is a whole new aspect to him. It's really quite wonderful. In this, he is more than the dashing leading man, almost as though he has a divinity about him.

I heartily recommend this movie. It carries with it a deep understanding of the season, and some very beautiful moments.