Change Your Image
lawrence81
Reviews
Under Milk Wood (1971)
If it had to have been done. . .
. . .I guess that this was the way to do it.
But who had the harebrained idea of doing a play for voices as a film, the most visual of media? All the actors, with the exception of Elizabeth Taylor, were very talented people, and were clearly doing their best, but conditions were against them. And even Taylor wasn't precisely BAD--it was just that so much of Rosie Probert's part was cut that one couldn't get a fair impression of what she could do with the part.
And why was so much of not just Rosie Probert's part, but the play as a whole cut? If it was because of time limitations, what was with the insertion of the totally-irrelevant and gratuitous 'Norma Jean' sequence? I'd say, save your money and buy a recording of some other version of MILKWOOD done as an audio play as God and Dylan Thomas intended.
Under Milk Wood (1992)
I really wanted to like this, but. . . .
It certainly had a great cast. But there were problems, big problems.
1. UNDER MILKWOOD was written as a "play for voices"--for the ratio. It was originally intended as being what we would call a 'pilot' for a series for the BBC about the goings-on in a small Welsh town where everybody is crazy--some people are mildly eccentric, at least two are right over the edge, and everybody else somewhere in between. It is a good piece for college and community theatre groups because, as a play for voices, there is minimal need for sets, costumes, props, etc., and by doubling roles one can do it with a fairly small cast.
Thomas drank himself to death before the BBC could pick it up. Why, then, would you make a FILM--a visual medium--of a RADIO PLAY--an audio medium? The whole idea was flawed from the beginning.
2. That being said, the performances were mostly very good, except for Elizabeth Taylor. She and Burton were a 'package deal' at the time. Her performance wasn't exactly BAD, but they cut so much of Rosie Probert's part from the original that one couldn't get a real sense of the character.
3. Which leads me to the next point. Why did they cut so much? And, if they made the cuts due to time constraints, why did they add the gratuitous sex scene with "Norma Jean", which had NOTHING to do with the play?
Little Women (1933)
Flawed, but still worth watching.
In fanfiction there is the phenomenon called the "Mary Sue"--a character who is an (idealized) version of the author who is inserted into the story to act out the author's fantasy. The original Mary Sue was in a Star Trek fanfiction where Ensign Mary Sue was braver than Kirk, smarter than Spock, more compassionate than McCoy, etc. who is able to save the day when nobody else can.
What has this, I hear you ask, to do with 'Little Women'? I think that all the March girls, but especially Jo, are somewhat Mary Sues to Louisa May Alcott. They are just too perfect. Especially Beth. Oscar Wilde said of Dickens' Little Nell that it would take a heart of stone not to laugh out loud reading her death scene; the same remark could apply to Beth. And Marmee is just to saintly and patient to be believed.
Still, in spite of it all, the film was worth watching, especially to see the young Kate Hepburn. I especially appreciate the time when she was asked when she would grow up and act like a proper lady, and she replied, "Never! Even when I'm old and walk with a cane!" (Or something to that effect.) Highly prophetic, as that was exactly how Kate lived.
Dead Poets Society (1989)
Male version. .
Is it just me, or is this a masculine edition of "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie"?
In both films we have a stuffy, conservative school in which a free-spirited teacher is idolized by his/her students and in which at least one student takes the teacher's ideas way too much to heart, with tragic results.