The following is Chapter Six of my story about a pair of free black siblings making the journey to California in 1849:
Chapter Six – Gateway to the West
April 4, 1849 St. Louis. Finally! I have never felt so relieved to leave the floating death trap that was the ALBERT P. SIMPSON. Four more passengers died before we finally berthed at St. Louis’ levee. I wondered why the city officials did not put the SIMPSON‘s passengers under quarintine before we could disembark.
“Why bother?” Alice had replied. According to her, half of St. Louis’ citizens have already keeled over from cholera since last December. She felt it would be a miracle if we manage to depart St. Louis . . . alive. Ever since leaving Cleveland, I have detected an increasing sharpness in my dear sister’s tongue. Am I now facing the real Alice Fleming? I hope not.
The city’s citizens have developed their own cure for the deadly disease – cholera masks. A person could perchase one for ten dollars. Alice says that I should not even bother. She claims that cholera came from bad food and milk and not the air. Naturally, I could not take the word of a nineteen year-old girl from a well-to-do family over any respectable doctor. So I went ahead and purchased two masks. Alice refused to wear hers.
St. Louis struck me as a grander city than Cinncinati. I was informed by a deckhand on the SIMPSON that it was the biggest city west of Pittsburg. However, Cleveland seemed a lot cleaner. The river traffic that docked near the levee seemed twice the amount we had encountered in Cinncinati. Just above the levee stood an elegant white building with an olive green, dome-shaped roof.
The mass of humanity that we had first encountered in Cinncinati seemed twice as big, here in St. Louis, only with added touches – red-skinned Indians, trappers, blue-coated Army officers and soldiers, and olive-skinned Mexicans. I gather that the latter were among those who drove the freight wagons along the Santa Fe Trail. And naturally there were slaves. After all, Missouri happened to be a slave state. Mind you, they were not the occasional fugitive slaves captured by bounty hunters. They were black men, women and children shackled together in long coffles and hearded into Lynch’s, the city’s slave pen on Market Street. What sad-eyed, ragged creatures they were! The expressions on their faces seemed to indicate resignation to their fate.
Alice suggested that we purchase more supplies for our trip west. I told her there was no need. We will have plenty of opportunities for that in Independence. “But the merchants there will charge the earth!” she insisted. Alice had learned this bit of news from an old fur trapper she had met aboard the ALBERT P. SIMPSON. When did she find the time to become aquainted with some trapper without my knowledge? This soothsayer of the Plains had recommended we travel to Independence by land, instead of a Missouri River steamboat. Alice added that it would be cheaper and we would not arrive at the jump-off point too soon.
“The perfect time for a wagon train to depart from Independence is early May,” she added. Leaving Independence before that period of time meant the possibility of being snowbound in the Sierra Nevadas. She also suggested that I trade the horses for mules or oxen. Horses were unsuited for pulling wagons over a long distance. And we should travel light as possible. “He also suggested that we never take short cuts.”
Feeling slightly intimidated by my sister’s surprising knowledge of traveling across the plains, I replied sardonically, “Anything else?”
Alice had nothing further to say. Thank goodness. I wish to God that mountain man had minded his own business. However, a voice at the back in my head whispered that I should heed the advice.
April 6, 1849 We spent two days in St. Louis, outfitting for our journey. We purchased lynch pins, rope, chains, barrels, flour, bacon, cornmeal, beans, dried apples, coffee and other equipment. And as Alice had suggested, I traded my team of horses for mules. It saddened me to bade farewell to those wonderful animals. They had accompanied us from Cleveland and I will miss them.
During our two-day shopping spree, our wagon joined three others to form a small camp not far from Jefferson Barracks – an Army outpost southwest of the city. Among our new companions were a middle-aged couple from Kentucky named Robbins. Alice managed to form a surprisingly quick friendship with Mrs. Robbins, a habitual gossip. We also became aquainted with two families from Pennsylvania on their way to Oregon. And lo and behold, the old trapper who had made Alice’s acquaintance on the ALBERT P. SIMPSON had joined our little company. His name was Lyman James and he did not look as old as I had imagined. At least somewhere between fifty and sixty years old. Like the Robbinses, Alice and myself, he was bound for California. Only he chose not to travel by wagon . . . just his horse and a pack mule.
We spent our last night around a campfire, listening to Mr. James’ recollections of his years as a mountain man. A night of tales about rendevouses, near escapes, Indian war parties and the Western landscape brought back memories of Mr. Whitman. I asked Mr. James if he ever knew my former benefactor.
“Ephraim Whitman?” he asked. A wistful expression appeared on his face. “By God! I haven’t heard that name in years! One of the best trappers I have ever known. And a good friend. He taught me and Joe Wright all about the fur trade. Heard he had settled somewhere in Ohio.”
I told him that Mr. Whitman had ended up in Cleveland. I also informed him about my benefactor’s death, last month. The former trapper seemed to age within seconds. “Poor old Ephraim,” he muttered. “At least he had lived a good life.” It was the best ephitat anyone could have given Mr. Whitman.
Following the failure of “JUSTICE LEAGUE” to storm the box office during the fall of 2017, Warner Brothers Pictures and the DC Extended Universe (DCEU) turned to the franchise’s sixth installment to carry it and the studio to both financial and especially critical glory. That movie proved to be 2018’s “AQUAMAN”.
The character of the DC Comics superhero, Aquaman aka Arthur Curry has made extensive appearances in both television and movie animations. His biggest role proved to be one of the main characters of the 1973-1986 Saturday morning animated series, “SUPER FRIENDS”. The character also made occasional appearances in the live-action WB (later, the CW) series, “SMALLVILLE”. The WB had plans for a series about Aquaman, starring Justin Hartley (who later became known as Oliver Queen aka the Green Arrow on “SMALLVILLE”), but nothing came from it. In the end, it took Zack Snyder to bring Aquaman to the fore as a live-action figure, when he cast actor Jason Momoa in the role for the DCEU franchise. “AQUAMAN” would prove to be Momoa’s third appearance in the franchise, after a brief cameo in 2016’s “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE” and a more prominent role in “JUSTICE LEAGUE”, the following year. However, “AQUAMAN” is the first film to feature Momoa as the lead in a DCEU film, but also the first movie that is actually about the “King of the Seven Seas”.
Directed by James Wan, “AQUAMAN” is a two-fold story that explores the drama behind Arthur Curry’s family conflicts. The movie also told how Arthur aka Aquaman went on a quest to prevent his half-brother King Orm Marius from uniting the seven undersea kingdoms in order to inflict war upon the surface world. The story begins in 1985, when a Maine lighthouse keeper named Tom Curry rescues a woman who has washed ashore during a storm. The mysterious woman turns out to be Atlanna, Queen of Atlantis, who had left her ocean world to escape an arranged marriage to another member of Atlantean royalty, Orvax. Both Tom and Atlanna fall in love, marry and conceive a child, whom they name Arthur. Unfortunately, Atlantean soldiers manage to find Atlanna. She decides to leave Tom and Arthur behind and return to Atlantis in order to protect them from Orvax’s wrath.
Over thirty years later, Arthur has become known as the metahuman vigilante, Aquaman. Months after the Justice League’s defeat of Steppenwolf, Aquaman prevents a group of pirates led by the father-son team, Jesse and David Kane, from hijacking a Russian Naval Akula-class submarine. Jesse dies during the confrontation with Aquaman, while David, vows revenge against the hero. Meanwhile, Arthur’s half-brother, King Orm of Atlantis attempts to convince King Nereus of Xebel to help him unite Atlantis and the other ocean kingdoms for an attack against the surface world for for harming the Earth’s oceans. Orm also hopes to solidify his position as Atlantis’ king. Nereus’s daughter and Orm’s fiancee, Princess Mera, heads to the surface to recruit Arthur in stopping Orm’s plans against the surface world and to present himself as the true king of Atlantis.
Over a year had passed between the release of “JUSTICE LEAGUE” and “AQUAMAN”. I noticed that many film critics and moviegoers seemed willing to heap lavish praise on the 2018 film, following the other movie’s poor performance and lack of critical acclaim. I will be honest . . . I did not dislike “JUSTICE LEAGUE”. I had mixed feelings about it. I still do. But I must admit that “AQUAMAN” is a better film. To a certain extent. “AQUAMAN” is a curious mixture of a family drama, a political film, an Indiana Jones-style adventure and the usual “save-the-planet” scenario.
For me, the best aspect of “AQUAMAN” is the family drama that centered around Queen Atlanna. David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick and Will Beall did an excellent job in conveying the consequences of Atlanna’s initial refusal to be dragged into an arranged marriage. Her actions resulted in eventual exile and possible death for her, two sons in conflict with each other, a political vacuum and one of her sons becoming a future costumed hero. The political vacuum left by Atlanna also led to an exciting and action-filled search for a missing magical artifact – the Trident of Atlan, which used to belong to Atlantis’ first ruler and had been missing his disappearance. This search would lead Arthur and Mera on a picturesque journey from the Mediterranean region to the depths of the ocean’s most elusive worlds, the Kingdom of the Trench.
I also liked the fact that Johnson-McGoldrick and Beall’s screenplay did not rush in conveying Orm’s story arc. They did not rush his efforts to solidify his position on the Atlantean throne or his efforts to convince or coerce the rulers of the other ocean kingdoms to acknowledge and join him in the attack against the surface. And what seemed to be the cherry on the top of this particular story arc is that the two screenwriters managed to utilize Aquaman’s other major nemesis – David Kane aka Black Mantis – into Orm’s story arc. In doing so, the two screenwriters and director James Wan managed to establish David Kane’s own origin story and major conflict against Aquaman for future movies. But what I really liked about “AQUAMAN” is that instead of the outsider or the interloper of a royal court being the main villain, he is the main protagonist. In other words, the main protagonist is the one who shakes up a society and not the villain. I found this refreshing after movies like “THOR” and “BLACK PANTHER”.
Another aspect of “AQUAMAN” that I enjoyed was the film’s visual styles. Bill Brzeski did an excellent job as the film’s production designer. I thought he did a competent job in not only re-creating Atlantis and other ocean worlds . . . to an extent. I also enjoyed his designs for those scenes that especially featured Arthur and Mera’s adventures in both the Sahara Desert and especially Sicily. Don Burgess’ cinematography did a great job in enhancing Brzeski’s work. This especially seemed to be the case for his photography of the shooting locations in Australia, Morocco and Italy. I am going to be frank. I am not a big fan of the traditional Aquaman suit . . . at least for Jason Momoa. From a visual perspective, I believe the suit he wore in “JUSTICE LEAGUE” worked better for him. But I must admit that I did enjoy Kym Barrett’s designs for the costume worn by Momoa in the Sicily sequence. And I especially enjoyed Ms. Barrett’s costumes for the other Atlantean and Xebel characters. Especially those costumes worn by Amber Heard. However, the one aspect of “AQUAMAN” that truly impressed me were the visual effects for the Atlantis scene created by the Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) team led by Jeff White. I mean . . . oh my God! Those visual effects truly blew me away with the sharp colors, beauty and originality, as seen in the images below:
How on earth did the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences fail to nominate White and the ILM team for their work in this film? It is simply criminal that the organization had failed to do this.
The performances featured in “AQUAMAN” struck me as either first-rate or solid. I would certainly describe Jason Momoa’s portrayal of Arthur Curry aka Aquaman as first-rate. One, the guy has charisma and presence oozing out of his pores. And two, Momoa did a great job in utilizing both his comedic and dramatic skills, when required by the screenplay. However, a part of me wishes there had been more of a balance between comedy and dramatic scenes for the actor. Another first-rate performance came from Amber Heard, who portrayed Princess Mera of Xebel. If I must be honest, I had been impressed by the way she had taken control of her performance in “JUSTICE LEAGUE”. Her portrayal of Mera as a strong-willed and commanding personality seemed even stronger in this film. “AQUAMAN” features the second time I have seen Patrick Wilson portray a villain. In this film, he gave a strong and intimidating portrayal of Aquaman’s half-brother, King Orm Marius aka Ocean Master. Wilson’s character was not as . . . amusing as his character in 2010’s “THE A-TEAM”, but I must admit that he did a great job in conveying Orm’s arrogance and bigotry. Yahya Abdul-Mateen II portrayed the film’s other villain, sea pirate-tech specialist David Kane, who will become one of Aquaman’s biggest nemesis, Black Mantis. Since he was not the main villain, his presence was not as extensive. But I cannot deny that Abdul-Mateen gave a very intense and memorable performance. I really look forward to seeing him in future DCEU films.
“AQUAMAN” also featured strong, yet solid performances from the supporting cast. Those performances include Nicole Kidman, who portrayed Arthur’s mother Queen Atlanna; Temeura Morrison as Arthur’s father, Tom Curry; Willem Dafoe, who portrayed Arthur’s mentor Vulko; Dolph Lundgren as King Nereus of Xebel; Michael Beach as Jesse Kane, pirate leader and father of the future Black Mantis; and Graham MacTavish, who provided the voice for Atlan, the first king of Atlantis. I also wanted to point out Randall Park, who gave a rather funny and entertaining performance as Dr. Stephen Shin, a marine biologist obsessed with finding the lost city of Atlantis. I was surprised to discover that the movie also featured voice performances from the likes of Julie Andrews, Djimon Hounsou and John Rhys-Davies.
As much as I enjoyed “AQUAMAN”, I had some problems with the film. My biggest problem proved to be director James Wan. I realize that he has managed to establish a positive reputation from the horror flicks he had directed in the past. The problem is that there were times when I found his direction rather clunky. A good example would be the film’s opening scene that featured the introduction of Aquaman’s parents. It struck me as a bit rushed.
Utilizing slow motion scenes can annoy me in any movie. But what I found particularly annoying in “AQUAMAN” was that Wan did not use slow motion in action scenes. Instead, he used it for shots featuring Momoa in various poses . . . as if he was some kind of fashion magazine model. Also, it seemed as if Wan was incapable of going from action to drama to comedy in a seamless way. Perhaps he will be able to flow his scenes a little better as he become more experienced, but I did not sense such a skill in “AQUAMAN”.
Also, I am a little . . . confused about Queen Atlanna’s position in Atlantis society. Was she the ruling monarch when she first met Tom Curry? Was she ever the ruling monarch? Or did Atlantis society forbade women sovereigns and would only allow the royal spouses of a direct female heiress or sovereign to be considered for the throne? The movie never made it clear. According to the movie, one of Orm’s major reasons for planning an attack upon the surface world was humanity’s pollution of the ocean. Aside from one minor sequence featuring news reports of piles of garbage washing up on many beaches, I feel the movie did not explore the topic of pollution as much as it should have, considering IT WASone of Orm’s reasons to attack humanity.
I realize that “AQUAMAN” is at the moment, the DCEU franchise’s most successful film. It is the only one that has managed to earn over a billion dollars so far. But do I consider it the best in the franchise? Not really. Between James Wan’s uneven direction, some plot points regarding the Queen Atlanna character and the film’s use of the pollution topic; it did not quite impress me as I had hoped it would. On the other hand, I found some of Wan’s direction rather impressive, especially the action sequences. The visual effects struck me as stunning, the movie featured excellent performances from a cast led by Jason Momoa and I thought screenwriters David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick and Will Beall wrote a first-rate adventure. I am more than satisfied.
Alexandre Dumas’ classic 1844 novel, “The Three Musketeers” must have been one of the most adapted stories in film and television history. I do not know exactly how many adaptations have been filmed. But I have seen at least four of them – including Disney Studios’ version, released in 1993.
Directed by Stephen Herek, “THE THREE MUSKETEERS” is not a faithful adaptation of Dumas’ novel. David Loughery’s script utilized some elements of the novel, including most of the characters and d’Artagnan’s first meeting with his three friends and fellow musketeers. But in the end, he created his own story. In “THE THREE MUSKETEERS”, a young Gascon named d’Artagnan hopes to follow in the footsteps of his late father and join the King of France’s Musketeers in 1625 France. Unfortunately for d’Artagnan, several factors stand in his way. One, he makes an enemy out of a local aristocrat named Gerard and his brothers, who believe he has defiled the honor of their sister, and is pursued by them all the way to Paris. Two, upon his arrival in Paris, he discovers that the Musketeers have been disbanded by King Louis XIII’s chief minister, the power-hungry Cardinal Richelieu. And three, his encounters with Musketeers Athos, Aramis and Porthos results in him accepting a duel from each man.
Fortunately, d’Artagnan’s hostility toward the trio is short-lived and he ends up helping them battle Richelieu’s guards, who arrive to arrest Athos, Aramis and Porthos. But after they leave him, d’Artagnan is arrested by more guards and Richelieu’s lackey, Captain Rochefort. While in prison, he meets the Cardinal and overhears a conversation between the latter and spy Milady de Winter. She is ordered to deliver a signed treaty to France’s primary enemy, the Duke of Buckingham of England. Cardinal Richelieu plans to undermine the King’s authority, before assassinating him, taking the throne and Queen Anne as consort. When Athos, Aramis and Porthos rescue d’Artagnan from execution, the four men set out to expose Richelieu as a traitor of France and save King Louis XIII from death.
Fans of Dumas’ novel will probably be unhappy with this adaptation, considering that it failed to be a faithful one. I must admit that when I first saw “THE THREE MUSKETEERS”, I was surprised and a little disappointed myself. And there were a few aspects of the movie that I disliked. The addition of Gerard and his brothers into the story really annoyed me in the end. Mind you, I found the aristocrat’s determination to confront d’Artagnan at the beginning of the movie tolerable. But once d’Artagnan reached Paris, with Gerard still in hot pursuit, the subplot became an annoying running joke that refused to die. And it did not. I like Paul McGann as an actor . . . but not that much.
Even worse, McGann’s Gerard seemed to have more screen time than any of the major female characters. Although I never viewed Queen Anne as a “major character”, I felt otherwise about Milady de Winter and d’Artagnan’s lady love, Constance Bonacieux. I did not mind when Loughery’s script transformed Julie Delpy’s Constance from the Queen’s dressmaker to maid/companion. But I did mind that her role was reduced to a few cameo appearances. The same almost happened to Rebecca De Mornay’s portrayal of Milady de Winter. I personally found the reduction of the latter role rather criminal. Milady has always been one of the best villains in literary history. And nearly every actress who has portrayed her, did justice to the role. I can say the same about De Mornay, who was excellent as Milady. Unfortunately, Loughery’s script gave her very few opportunities to strut her stuff.
Despite the change in Dumas’ story and the reduction in the females’ roles, I cannot deny that “THE THREE MUSKETEERS” proved to be a first-rate and entertaining movie. It had romance – well, a little of it. The best romance in the film proved to be the long simmering one between Athos and Milady, whose marriage had earlier ended in failure. And I found the one between d’Artagnan and Constance rather charming, if brief. The movie featured some great action, including a marvelous chase scene in which the Musketeers are being pursued by Rochefort and the Cardinal’s men; d’Artagnan’s first sword fight, in which he allied himself with the Musketeers; Milady de Winter’s capture at Calais; and especially the final fight sequence in which the Musketeers prevent Richelieu’s plans for the King’s assassination.
Tim Curry made an entertaining, yet splashy Cardinal Richelieu. He came close to being all over the map, yet he still managed to keep his performance controlled. And Michael Wincott’s sinister portrayal of Captain Rochefort was superb. Rebecca De Mornay was superb as Milady de Winter, despite the role being reduced. And her Milady has always struck me as the most complex in all of the adaptations. Julie Delpy and Gabrielle Anwar were charming as Constance and Queen Anne. I wish I could say the same about Hugh O’Connor as King Louis XIII, but I must admit that I was not that impressed. He was eighteen years old at the time and probably a little too young and stiff to be portraying the 24 year-old monarch.
But the highlight of “THE THREE MUSKETEERS” proved to be the four actors who portrayed d’Artagnan and his three friends – Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. They were perfect. Chris O’Donnell captured every aspect of d’Artagnan’s youthful personality – the earnestness, cockiness, and immaturity. Watching the movie made me realize that he has come a long way in the past nineteen years. And he had great chemistry with the three actors who portrayed the Musketeers. Kiefer Sutherland was perfect as the commanding, yet cynical and disillusioned Athos, who regretted ending his marriage to Milady. The producers of this film certainly picked the right man to portray the smooth-talking ladies’ man, Aramis. And whatever one might say about Charlie Sheen, he did a superb job in the role. Oliver Platt was a delight as the brash and extroverted Porthos. Quite frankly, he made a better figure for comic relief than McGann’s Gerard. However, the best thing about the four actors’ performances was that they all perfectly clicked as a screen team. All for one and one for all.
Yes, “THE THREE MUSKETEERS” was not perfect. What movie is? And it is certainly not the best adaptation of Alexandre Dumas’ novel. But I cannot deny that it was entertaining. And I have no regrets in purchasing a DVD copy of this film. If one can keep an open mind over the fact that it was not a close adaptation of the 1844 novel, I think it is possible to find it very enjoyable.
Below is a list of my favorite movies and television movies set in Hollywood’s past, before 1960:
FAVORITE MOVIES SET IN OLD HOLLYWOOD
1. “Singin’ in the Rain” (1952) – Gene Kelly, Donald O’Connor and Debbie Reynolds starred in this musical classic about Hollywood’s transition from silent films to talkies. Kelly co-directed with Stanley Donen.
2. “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” (1988) – Robert Zemeckis directed this adaptation of Gary Wolfe’s 1981 novel, “Who Censored Roger Rabbit?”, in which a 1940s private detective who must exonerate a cartoon star “Toon” for the murder of a wealthy businessman. Bob Hoskins, Charles Fleischer and Christopher Lloyd starred.
3. “Moviola: The Scarlett O’Hara War” (1980) – Tony Curtis starred as producer David O. Selznick in the second episode of the miniseries, “Moviola”. The television movie featured Selznick’s search for the right actress to portray the leading character in his movie adaptation of “Gone With the Wind”.
4. “The Aviator” (2004) – Martin Scorsese produced and directed this biopic about mogul Howard Hughes’ experiences as a filmmaker and aviator between 1927 and 1947. Oscar nominee Leonardo DiCaprio starred.
5. “Hitchcock” (2012) – Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren starred in this comedy-drama about the tumultuous marriage between director-producer Alfred Hitchcock and screenwriter Alma Reville during the former’s making of his 1960 hit, “Psycho”. Sacha Gervasi directed.
6. “Trumbo” (2015) – Oscar nominee Bryan Cranston starred in this biopic about screenwriter Dalton Trumbo and his troubles after being jailed and blacklisted for being a member of the Communist Party. Directed by Jay Roach, Diane Lane and Helen Mirren co-starred.
7. “The Bad and the Beautiful” (1952) – Vincente Minelli directed this melodrama about the impact of a Hollywood producer on the lives of three people he had worked with and betrayed. Kirk Douglas, Lana Turner, Barry Sullivan and Dick Powell starred.
8. “Hollywoodland” (2006) – Adrien Brody, Diane Lane and Ben Affleck starred in this intriguing tale about a private detective’s investigation into the life and death of actor George Reeves. Allen Coulter directed.
9. “Hail, Caesar!” (2016) – Ethan and Joel Coen produced and directed this fictional account in the life of studio executive/fixer, Eddie Mannix. The movie starred Josh Brolin.
10. “The Artist” (2011) – Michel Hazanavicius wrote and directed this Academy Award winning movie about a silent screen star and the disruption of his life and career by the emergence of talking pictures. Oscar winner Jean Dujardin and Oscar nominee Bérénice Bejo starred.
Years ago, I used to watch a great deal of old movies on late night television. My two favorite channels that offered these movies were Turner Network Television (TNT) and the American Movies Classic (AMC), which used to air movies without any commercial breaks. On TNT, I had stumbled across a Western movie originally released by MGM Studios in 1953 called “ESCAPE FROM FORT BRAVO” (1953) and fell in love with it. After watching my recently purchased DVD copy of the movie, I could see why it became a favorite of mine.
Directed by John Sturges during the first decade of his directorial career, “ESCAPE FROM FORT BRAVO” told the story of a Union Army officer that served as the second-in-command of a prisoner-of-war camp located in the Arizona Territory in 1863. The movie’s opening pretty much set the stage of what kind of character Captain Roper was, as it depicted him dragging an escaped Confederate prisoner back to Fort Bravo. The fact that Roper was on horseback and his prisoner – a Lieutenant Bailey – was on foot pretty much established the Union officer as a hard-nosed and ruthless man. That flint-like personality was exacerbated by his cynicism, revealed in his reactions to the other characters’ disapproval of his treatment of Bailey. However, chaos soon arrived in the form of one Carla Forrester, a Texas belle who arrived at Fort Bravo to serve as maid-of-honor at the wedding of Alice Owens, the daughter of Fort Bravo’s commanding officer, Colonel Owens. Carla was also there to ensure the escape of the prisoners’ ranking officer, her fiancé Captain John Marsh and a few of his men. In order to keep their Union jailers distracted, Carla set out to seduce and romance the fort’s most feared man – Captain Roper.
When I first saw “ESCAPE FROM FORT BRAVO”, I never thought I would become such a diehard fan of the movie. Do not get me wrong. It was not the best or innovative Western I had ever seen. Screenwriters Frank Fenton and an unaccredited Michael Pate had created a solid character study about conflicts – both political and personal – between the Union and Confederate troops in the Civil War Southwest, and the conflict between the Apaches and everyone else. The movie even had a happy ending – somewhat. Yet, Sturges, Fenton and Pate managed to lift a solid tale into something more fascinating by infusing a great deal of emotion and complexity in the main characters And it were these complex characters that truly made “ESCAPE FROM FORT BRAVO” for me. The characters seemed to seethe with an array of emotions that eventually burst forth as the movie unfolded. Many of these emotions seemed to center around the story’s main character.
One of those characters happened to be Carla Forrester. And Eleanor Parker managed to do a top-notch job in portraying the bundle of contradictions that simmered underneath her ladylike façade. Parker portrayed Carla as a cool Southern belle with impeccable manners and a talent for seduction. Her Carla also possessed the ruthlessness to browbeat a reluctant pro-Southern storekeeper into helping Marsh and his men escape; a boldness that allowed her to chase after Roper in an age where women were valued for being passive; and a great deal of passion for Marsh and later, Roper. One of the more interesting aspects of Parker’s performance was expessing Carla’s struggles to suppress her feelings for Roper. Recently, I learned that Parker had earned the nickname Woman of a Thousand Faces. Judging from her portrayal of Carla Forrester, I would say that she deserved the name.
I have been a fan of John Forsythe since his years as Charlie Townsend’s voice in “CHARLIE’S ANGELS” (1976-1981) and his work on the ABC nighttime soap opera “DYNASTY” (1981-1989). But I must admit that I found his performance in “ESCAPE FROM FORT BRAVO” somewhat perplexing. On one hand, Forsythe did a excellent job in portraying John Marsh’s patience, intelligence and slightly caustic nature – especially in scenes that featured Marsh’s exchanges with his fellow Confederate prisoners. However, there seemed to be something not quite . . . right about the character. I do not know if the fault lay with Forsythe’s performance or Fenton and Pate’s screenplay. The problem with the Marsh character or Forsythe’s acting seemed to be Marsh’s successful ability to suppress his emotions. There were times when I wondered if the only true feelings that Marsh seemed able to truly express, centered around his desire to escape. And when he finally did express his his jealousy toward Carla’s feelings about Roper – it came off as slightly unconvincing. Either Forsythe had failed to sell it . . . or Fenton and Pate failed to allow Marsh to express his jealousy until it was too late in the story.
I certainly cannot accuse William Demarest and William Campbell for giving unconvincing performances. The pair portrayed two of the Confederate prisoners – the wise “old” man Sergeant Campbell and the cocky young Cabot Young. The pair seemed to be engaged in some kind of verbal warfare that I found a lot of fun. Yet, it also seemed to hint some kind of mild dislike between the two – until the ending revealed their true feelings for each other. Two other performances caught my attention – John Lupo as the cowardly Confederate officer Lieutenant Bailey and Richard Anderson (of “THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN” and “THE BIONIC WOMAN” fame) as the soon-to-be husband of Alice Owen, Lieutenant Beecher. What made these two characters interesting was that each man – in his own way – seemed capable of some kind of courage. Although a physical coward, Bailey possessed the courage to openly admit his limitations. And Beecher had no qualms about openly expressing his disapproval of Roper’s ruthlessness, despite being the captain’s subordinate.
While writing this review, it occurred to me that I had yet to comment on William Holden’s performance as the hard-nosed Captain Roper. The same year (1953) that MGM released “ESCAPE FROM FORT BRAVO”, Paramount released Billy Wilder’s movie, “STALAG 17” – the movie that featured Holden’s Oscar winning performance. If I had my way, I would have given Holden the Oscar for his performances in both movies. What I found amazing about his portrayal of Roper is that in the hands of a lesser actor, the character could have easily ended up one-dimensional. Ironically, most of the supporting characters seemed to view him as a one-dimensional hard ass. Yet, Holden managed to effectively convey Roper’s complexity by perfectly balancing the character’s ruthlessness with an intelligent, witty and passionate man. In the end, he actor did a superb job in combining the many aspects of Roper’s personality into a complex and interesting character.
MGM’s Oscar winning costume designer Helen Rose added color to the movie with some lush costumes befitting the movie’s early 1860s setting. Unfortunately, Rose made one serious misstep with a yellow evening gown worn by Eleanor Parker:
The gown seemed more befitting of a movie set in the early 1950s, instead of the 1860s. It is not surprising that Rose had received her Oscar nominations and wins for movies in a modern setting. I also have to commend cinematographer Robert Surtees for capturing the Southwest landscape (Southern California and New Mexico) without overwhelming the performers. Surtees also made use of the Ansco cameras to give the movie a rich and lush aura, allowing the desert to seem more colorful than usual.
Surprisingly, Frank Fenton and Michael Pate’s script for “ESCAPE FROM FORT BRAVO” seemed to bear a small, yet striking resemblance to John Ford’s 1939 classic, “STAGECOACH”. Both movies are basically character studies of a group of people in a Western setting – namely the Southwest – that included action against the Apaches in the final acts. And the Apaches in both films proved to be nothing more than plot devices to drive the characters’ situations forward. However, Sturges and the two screenwriters gave the Apaches’ roles a twist by portraying them as an organized military unit, instead of a bunch of rampaging “savages”, during a sequence that featured Roper, Carla, Beecher, Marsh, Bailey, Campbell and Young under besiege by the Apaches’ “bombardment” of arrow similar to Henry V’s use of English and Welsh longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt. And unlike the John Wayne and Claire Trevor characters in “STAGECOACH”, this movie left the fate of Roper and Carla’s future romance in the air. After all, she had assisted in the Confederates’ escape.
It is a shame that “ESCAPE FROM FORT BRAVO” has never been considered when top Hollywood Westers are discussed. Or even when John Sturges’ career is discussed. Frankly, I believe the movie deserves to be considered. Sturges had taken Frank Fenton and Michael Pate’s sharp screenplay and a top notch cast to create a tense and complex Western that I feel is one of the best I have seen to come out of the Hollywood studio era.
Many people love to praise FOX science-fiction series, “THE ORVILLE” to the sky. Many praise it for being the epitome of the “traditional aspects” of the STAR TREK franchise. Even more so than the latest entry of the latter, “STAR TREK DISCOVERY”.
I have my suspicions on why so many love to praise “THE ORVILLE” to the detriment of the CBS Access series. I suspect that both sexism and racism are two of the reasons behind this sentiment . . . especially in regard to the leading lady of “STAR TREK DISCOVERY”. However, there is some aspect or style of “THE ORVILLE” that makes me understand why many others would make this claim about the series being “traditional Trek”. Unfortunately, I do not think this aspect has proven to be beneficial to the FOX series.
How can I be anymore blunt? To me, “THE ORVILLE” is basically a remake of the second Trek series, “STAR TREK NEXT GENERATION”, but with a touch of leading actor Seth MacFarlane’s style of humor. I just wish the series could be different. Offer A DIFFERENT STYLE in its presentation of episodes. It had recently occurred to me that “NEXT GENERATION” reminded me a lot “STAR TREK THE ORIGINAL SERIES” than any of the other Trek shows. In terms of format and the style of shows, it is almost seems like a remake or continuation of the 1966-69 series. Perhaps this is not surprising considering that the 1987-94 series, along with “THE ORIGINAL SERIES”, was created by Gene Roddenberry. This could be a reason why it seems more beloved by the franchise’s fandom and producers, save for the first series.
My recent viewing of “THE ORVILLE” made me suspect that it pretty much repeated what “NEXT GENERATION” had done in terms of storytelling and format. Although both shows were willing to explore the different quirks and minor flaws of its main characters, both seemed hellbent upon portraying Humans as generally more superior than other alien races. Both shows seemed willing to put humanity on a pedestal. The Moclus race, as personified by the Lieutenant Commander Bortus character, bears a strong resemblance to the Klingons of the 24th century. And Bortus seems to be another Lieutenant (later Commander) Worf. Even the relationship between MacFarlane’s Captain Ed Mercer and Adrianne Palicki’s Commander Kelly Grayson almost seems like a re-hash of the Commander William Riker and Counselor Deanna Troi relationship, as portrayed by Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sartis in “NEXT GENERATION”. And yet, the Trek shows that followed “NEXT GENERATION” seemed to be willing to offer something different.
“STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE” was set on a space station and possessed a narrative structure that very slowly developed into a serial format by its third season. “STAR TREK VOYAGER” featured a crew traveling alone on the other side of the galaxy that comprised of Starfleet officers and crewmen, Maquis freedom fighters, an ex-convict/former Starfleet officer, two aliens and a former Borg drone. Superficially, “STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE” seemed a lot like “THE ORIGINAL SERIES” and “NEXT GENERATION”, but it was set a century before 1966-69 series – during the few years before the establishment of the Federation, and it featured a serialized narrative about a major war during its third season. “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” proved to be a Trek series that has been serialized since its first episode. More importantly, its main character IS NOT a star ship or space station commander.
The Trek shows that had followed “NEXT GENERATION” have been more willing to explore the uglier side of the Federation, Starfleet and Humanity; than the first two series. This has been especially apparent in “DEEP SPACE NINE”, “VOYAGER” and “DISCOVERY”. And aside from “VOYAGER, the Trek shows that followed “NEXT GENERATION” have been willing to utilize a serialized format – something that many fans seemed to lack the patience to endure lately. Most of this criticism toward a serialized narrative has been directed against “DISCOVERY”. However, I personally find this ironic, considering that the other Trek shows have used this narrative device with the same quality as the other shows. At least in my eyes. I suspect that this heavy criticism toward “DISCOVERY” has more to do with the show’s lead than its writing quality. Even “VOYAGER” has been willing to serialized some of its episodes on a limited scale, especially during its mid-Season Four.
Officially, “THE ORVILLE” is not a part of the Trek franchise. Why does it feel that it is? And Why does it have to feel like it? Because its creator and star, Seth MacFarlane, had this need to pay homage to “NEXT GENERATION”? Or even “THE ORIGINAL SERIES”? Why? Some advocates of “THE ORVILLE” have pointed out the series’ style of humor and the fact that it features a LGBTQ couple. However, “DISCOVERY”, which had premiered during the same month and year, also features a LGBTQ couple. And previous Trek shows and movies have featured or hinted LGBTQ romance and/or sexuality in the past – namely “DEEP SPACE NINE” and the 2016 movie, “STAR TREK BEYOND”. Even television series like “BABYLON 5” and “BATTLESTAR: GALACTICA” have featured or hinted LGBTQ issues. But more importantly, both shows, along with “FARSCAPE” and others in the science-fiction genre have managed to be completely original both style and substance. Why did MacFarlane feel he had to literally copy “NEXT GENERATION” when other Trek shows have managed to be more original? The only aspect of “THE ORVILLE” that I truly find original is its occasional use of twisted humor. And even that has appeared even less during the series’ second season.
This is what I find so frustrating about “THE ORVILLE”. One, I feel that it is basically “traditional Trek” disguised as another science-fiction franchise. Even worse, it seems like a close rip-off of “STAR TREK NEXT GENERATION”. I see nothing complimentary about this. I find it sad that so many people do. And I find it even sadder that so many people are willing to put “THE ORVILLE” on a pedestal for . . . what? For the series’ lack of originality? Because these fans want to cling to the past? This is just sad. No . . . not, sad. Pathetic. At least to me.
The following is Chapter Five of my story about a pair of free black siblings making the journey to California in 1849:
Chapter Five – Rollin’ on the River
April 1, 1849 Our journey down the Ohio River seems more like a pleasure cruise than a difficult journey. And I must add that the river must be one of the most beautiful bodies of water I have ever laid eyes upon, save Lake Erie.
Alice and I have claimed a spot for our wagon on the SIMPSON’s main deck, along with other westbound travelers with covered wagons. Other passengers on this deck include farmers, slave coffles (I fear I might be becoming familiar with the sight), livestock, mountain men and other ordinary folk. The topic on everyone’s lips seem to be gold in California.
A fellow emigrant from Pennsylvania expressed fear that all of the gold may have already been picked. After all, nearly fifteen months had passed since that fellow, James Marshall, had discovered that gold nugget. Another emigrant – a red-haired man who happened to be a fellow Ohioan – dismissed the idea. ”California was a vast land,” he said. Plenty of gold left for those who have yet to arrive.
April 3, 1849 We have finally reached Cairo, a small river port at the tip of Southern Illinois. And I cannot think of any other place I would rather not be. There is nothing wrong with the town’s physical appearance. Frankly, I found it very pleasant. Somewhat. It does seem slightly diminished. I had expected it to be slightly bigger. There is an unpleasant side to Cairo that I had learned from one of the boat’s deckhands. The city, like the rest of Illinois, has a reputation for hostility toward Negroes. In fact, the entire state does not encourage free Negroes to live within its borders. And those who do are subjected to a level of harassment not even known throughout the rest of the North. I suggested to Alice that we remain aboard the ALBERT P. SIMPSON.
Because of its position at the junction of both the Ohio and the Mississippi Rivers, Cairo has become an important river port. Many folks bound south for Memphis, Natchez and New Orleans were forced to disembark. In their place, the ALBERT P. SIMPSON acquired new passengers. Many were, like us, bound for St. Louis or further west. And now the main deck is filled with more covered wagons and emigrants.
The Mississippi River is not at all like the Ohio. Its majestic view is somewhat dimmed by its muddy coloring. Brown and thick, it is truly an ugly river. Alice and I have also learned that the Mississippi River Valley has been struck by a cholera epidemic. I am not that surprised. The river strikes me as the perfect breeding ground for diseases of all sorts. From New Orleans to St. Louis, folks have been dropping like flies. Two passengers have died since our departure from Cairo. Their bodies were dumped overboard and into the river. This whole matter does not bode well for Alice and myself. For the first time, I am wondering if I had been wise to leave Cleveland.
“JUDITH KRANTZ’S TILL WE MEET AGAIN” (1989) Review
One of the most popular romance novelists to emerge during the 1970s and 1980s was Judith Krantz, whose series of novels seemed to be part romance/part family saga. At least six (or seven) of her novels were adapted as television miniseries. One of them was the 1988 novel, “Till We Meet Again”, which became the 1989 CBS miniseries, “JUDITH KRANTZ’S TILL WE MEET AGAIN”.
Set between 1913 and 1952, the early 1950s, “JUDITH KRANTZ’S TILL WE MEET AGAIN” (aka “TILL WE MEET AGAIN”) focused on the lives of Eve, the daughter of a French provincial middle-class doctor and her two daughters, Delphine and Marie-Frederique ‘Freddy’ de Lancel. The story began in 1913 when Eve met a traveling music hall performer named Alain Marais. When she learned that her parents planned to agree to an arranged marriage for her, Eve joined Alain on a train to Paris and the pair became lovers and roommates. Within a year, Alain became seriously ill and Eve was forced to find work to maintain their finances. With the help of a neighbor and new friend, Vivianne de Biron, Eve became a music hall performer herself and Paris’ newest sensation. Out of jealousy, anger and embarrassment, Alain ended their romance.
During World War I, Eve met Paul de Lancel, the heir to an upper-class family that produces champagne who had been recently widowed by a suicidal wife. Following Eve’s marriage to Paul, the couple conceived Delphine and Freddy and Paul became a diplomat. The latter also became estranged from his son Bruno, who was eventually raised by his maternal aristocratic grandparents, who blamed Paul for their daughter’s suicide. By 1930, Eve and Paul found themselves in Los Angeles, where he served as that city’s French consul. And over the next two decades, the de Lancel family dealt with new careers, love, the rise of fascism, the movie industries, World War II, post-war economics, romantic betrayals and Bruno’s villainous and malicious antics.
“JUDITH KRANZ’S TILL WE MEET AGAIN” is not what I would call a television masterpiece. Or even among the best television productions I have ever seen. Considering its source, a period piece romance novel – something most literary critics would dismiss as melodramatic trash – it is not surprising that I would regard the 1989 this way. Then again, the 1972 Academy Award Best Picture winner, “THE GODFATHER”, was based on what many (including myself) believe was pulp fiction trash. However, “TILL WE MEET AGAIN” did not have Francis Ford Coppola to transform trash into Hollywood gold. I am not dismissing the 1989 miniseries as trash. But I would never regard it as a fine work of art.
And I did have a few problems with the production. I found the pacing, thanks to director Charles Jarrott, along with screenwriters Andrew Peter Marin and (yes) Judith Krantz; rather uneven. I think the use of montages could have helped because there were times when the miniseries rushed through some of its sequences . . . to the point that I found myself wondering what had earlier occurred in the story. This seemed to be the case with Eve’s backstory. Her rise from the daughter of a provincial doctor to Parisian music hall sensation to a diplomat’s wife struck as a bit too fast. It seemed as if Jarrott, Marin and Krantz were in a hurry to commence on Freddy and Delphine’s story arcs. Another problem I had was the heavy emphasis on Freddy’s post war story arc. Both Delphine and Eve were nearly pushed to the background, following the end of World War II. It is fortunate that the miniseries’ focus on the post-war years played out in its last 20 to 30 minutes.
I also had a problem with how Marin and Krantz ended Delphine’s relationship with her older half-brother Bruno. In the novel, Delphine ended her friendship with Bruno after his attempt to pimp her out to some German Army official during the Nazi’s occupation of France. This also happened in the miniseries, but Marin and Krantz took it too far by taking a page from Krantz’s 1980 novel, “Princess Daisy” . . . by having Bruno rape Delphine after her refusal to sleep with the German officer. I found this unnecessary, considering that the two screenwriters never really followed up on the consequences of the rape. If this was an attempt to portray Bruno a monster, it was unnecessary. His collaboration of the Nazis, his attempt to pimp out Delphine, his sale of the de Lancels’ precious stock of champagne and his participation in the murders of three locals who knew about the sale struck me as enough to regard him as a monster.
My remaining problems with “TILL WE MEET AGAIN” proved to minor. Many of Krantz’s novels tend to begin as period dramas and end in the present time. I cannot say the same about her 1988 novel. The entire story is set entirely in the past – a forty-year period between pre-World War I and the early 1950s. Yet, I managed to spot several anachronisms in the production. Minor ones, perhaps, but anachronisms nevertheless. One of the most obvious anachronisms proved to be the hairstyles for many of the female characters – especially the de Lancel sisters, Delphine and Freddy. This anachronism was especially apparent in the hairstyles they wore in the 1930s sequences – long and straight. Most young girls and women wore soft shoulder bobs that were slightly above the shoulders during that decade. Speaking of anachronism, the actor who portrayed Armand Sadowski, a Polish-born director in the French film industry, wore a mullet. A 1980s-style mullet during those same 1930s sequences. Sigh! The make-up worn by many of the female characters struck me as oddly modern. Another anachronistic popped up in the production’s music. I am not claiming that late 1980s songs were featured in the miniseries. The songs selected were appropriate to the period. However, I noticed that those songs were performed and arranged in a more modern style. It was like watching television characters performing old songs at a retro music show. It simply felt . . . no, it sound wrong to me.
Despite my complaints, I did enjoy “TILL WE MEET AGAIN”. In fact, I believe that its virtues were strong enough to overshadow its flaws. One, Judith Krantz had created a first-rate family saga . . . one that both she and screenwriter Andrew Peter Marin did justice to in this adaptation. Two, this is the only Krantz family saga that I can remember that is set completely in the past. Most of her family sagas start in the past and spend at least two-thirds of the narrative in the present. Not “TILL WE MEET AGAIN”. More importantly, this family saga is more or less told through the eyes of three women. I have noticed how rare it is for family sagas in which the narratives are dominated by women, unless it only featured one woman as the main protagonist. And neither Eve, Delphine or Freddy are portrayed as instantaneous ideal women. Yes, they are beautiful and talented in different ways. But all three women were forced to grow or develop in the story.
Being the oldest and the mother of the other two, Eve was forced to grow up during the first third of the saga. However, she spent a great deal of emotional angst over her daughters’ lives and the fear that her past as a music hall entertainer may have had a negative impact on her husband’s diplomatic career. Eve and Freddy had to deal with a disappointing love (or two) before finding the right man in their lives. Delphine managed to find the right man at a young age after becoming an actress with the film industry in France. But World War II, and the Nazi regime’s anti-Semitic policies managed to endanger and interrupt her romance. Freddy’s love life involved a bittersweet romance with an older man – the very man who taught her to become a pilot; a quick romance and failed marriage to a British aristocrat; and the latter’s closest friend, an American pilot who had harbored years of unrequited love for Freddy until she finally managed to to notice him.
Despite the saga being dominated by Eve, Delphine and Freddy; the two male members of the de Lancel family also had strong roles in this saga. I thought both Krantz and Marin did an excellent job in their portrayal of the complex relationship between Paul de Lancel and his only son and oldest child, Bruno de Lancel, who also happened to be Delphine and Freddy’s half-brother. I also found it interesting how Bruno’s unforgiving maternal grand-parents’ over-privileged upbringing of him and their snobbish regard for Eve had tainted and in the end, torn apart the relationship between father and son. Mind you, Bruno’s own ugly personality did not help. But he was, after all, a creation of the Marquis and Marquise de Saint-Fraycourt. Ironically, Paul also had his troubles with both Delphine and Freddy – especially during their late adolescence. Between Delphine’s forays into Hollywood’s nighttime society behind her parents’ backs and Freddy’s decision to skip college and become a stunt pilot, Paul’s relationships with his daughters endured troubled waters. And I thought the screenwriters did an excellent job in conveying the diplomat’s complex relationships with both of them.
And despite my low opinion of the hairstyles featured in “TILL WE MEET AGAIN”, I cannot deny that the production values featured in the miniseries struck me as quite impressive. Roger Hall did an excellent job in his production designs that more or less re-created various locations on two continents between the years of 1913 and 1952. His work was ably supported by Rhiley Fuller and Mike Long’s art direction, Donald Elmblad and Peter Walpole’s set decorations, and Alan Hume’s cinematography, which did such an exceptional job of capturing the beauty and color of its various locations. However, I must admit that I really enjoyed Jerry R. Allen and Robin Fraser-Paye’s costume designs. I thought they did an excellent job of recapturing the fashions of the early-to-mid 20th century.
If I must be honest, I cannot think of any performance that blew my mind. I am not claiming that the acting featured in “TILL WE MEET AGAIN” were terrible, let alone mediocre. Frankly, I believe that all of the major actors and actresses did a great job. Courtney Cox gave a very energetic performance as the ambitious and aggressive Freddy de Lancel. Bruce Boxleitner also gave an energetic performance as Jock Hampton, the best friend of Freddy’s husband . . . but with a touch of pathos, as he conveyed his character’s decade long unrequited love for the red-headed Mademoiselle de Lancel. Mia Sara gave a spot-on portrayal of Delphine de Lancel from an ambitious, yet insecure adolescent to a sophisticated and more mature woman. And again, I can the same about Lucy Gutteridge’s portrayal of Eve de Lancel, who developed the character from an impulsive adolescent to a mature woman who proved to be her family’s backbone. Hugh Grant was sufficiently sophisticated and hissable as the villainous Bruno de Lancel without turning his performance into a cliche. Charles Shaughnessy skillfully managed to convey to portray the worthy man behind director Armand Sadowski’s womanizing charm. John Vickery gave a interested and complex portrayal of Freddy’s British aristocrat husband, Anthony “Tony” Longbridge. And Maxwell Caufield was excellent as the charming, yet ego-driven singer Alain Marais. I believe one of the best performances came from Michael York, who was excellent as the emotionally besieged Paul de Lancel, struggling to deal with a stalled diplomatic career, two strong-willed daughters and a treacherous son. I believe the other best performance came from Barry Bostwick, who was excellent as Freddy’s first love Terrence ‘Mac’ McGuire. I thought he did a great job of portraying a man torn between his love for Freddy and his guilt over being in love with someone who was young enough to be his daughter.
Look, I realize that “JUDITH KRANTZ’S TILL WE MEET AGAIN” is basically a glorified period piece melodrama disguised as a family saga. I realize that. And I realize that it is not perfect. Nor would I regard it as an example of the best American television can offer. But at its heart, I thought it was basically a well written family saga that centered around three remarkable women. Thanks to Judith Krantz and Andrew Peter Marin’s screenplay; Charles Jarrott’s direction and a first-rate cast, the 1989 miniseries proved to be first-rate piece of television drama.
Below is a list of my five favorite episodes from Season Two of the WGN series, “UNDERGROUND”. Created by Misha Green and Joe Pokaski, the series stars Jurnee Smollett-Bell and Aldis Hodge:
FIVE FAVORITE EPISODES OF “UNDERGROUND” SEASON TWO (2017)
1. (2.03) “Ache” – Underground Railroad conductor/Macon 7 fugitive slave Rosalee struggle to evade Patty Canon’s slave catching band. Her mother Ernestine is haunted by her past, while adjusting to her new role as a field hand on a South Carolina Sea Island plantation.
2. (2.08) “Auld Acquaintance” – When Rosalee’s plan to rescue her younger brother James from the Macon plantation fails in the previous episode, fellow Macon 7 fugitive Noah struggles to form a new plan to save sister and brother. Ernestine’s attempt to escape from the South Carolina plantation is thwarted by slave catcher August Pullman.
3. (2.01) “Contraband” – Rosalee and the Northern abolitionists, John and Elizabeth Hawke, scheme to prevent Noah from being convicted for the murder of an Ohio lawman and from being sent back to the Macon plantation in Georgia.
4. (2.07) “28” – Noah helps Rosalee rescue her brother James from the Macon plantation, unaware that she is pregnant with their child. Ernestine flees the South Carolina plantation where she was a field hand. And fellow Macon 7 fugitive Cato, who has been captured by the Patty Canon gang, is forced to help them abduct and sell free blacks into slavery.
5. (2.09) “Citizen” – While Noah, Rosalee and James travel north from Georgia; Cato has encounters with Harriet Tubman, Elizabeth Hawke and a biracial abolitionist named Georgia in Ohio; while working for Patty Canon.
Below is my ranking of the Season One episodes of the Amazon Prime series, “JACK RYAN”. Based upon characters created by Tom Clancy and created by Carlton Cuse and Graham Roland, the series stars John Krasinski in the title role:
RANKING OF “JACK RYAN” SEASON ONE (2018) EPISODES
1. (1.06) “Sources and Methods” – CIA Analyst Jack Ryan’s moral compass is tested when he and new his section boss James Greer use a Turkish criminal to track down Hanin Ali, the wife of terrorist Mousa Bin Suleiman, who has fled from the latter.
2. (1.04) “The Wolf” – Suleiman starts an insurrection within ISIS by imprisoning its leader, consolidating control of the organization and taking control of 12 hostage physicians from Doctors Without Borders. Meanwhile; Ryan, Greer and French intelligence officer Sandrine Arnaud track Suleiman’s brother Ali to a remote gas station near the French Alps.
3. (1.01) “Pilot” – In the series premiere, Ryan uncovers a series of suspicious transactions surrounding Suleiman that take him and Greer out from behind their desks and into the field to hunt down the terrorist in Yemen.
4. (1.08) “Inshallah” – In this season finale, Ryan and Greer discovers that Suleiman’s next attack could be on U.S. soil. They must figure out how to stop him starting a viral outbreak in Washington D.C.
5. (1.02) “French Connection” – A fresh piece of intelligence takes Ryan and Greer to Paris and one step closer to the elusive Suleiman. Suleiman returns home with a renewed fervor for his secretive mission, leaving Hanin unsure of their family’s future.
6. (1.03) “Black 22” – Lieutenant Victor Polizzi, a U.S. Air Force drone officer, struggles with the moral consequences of his job. Hanin is forced to make a dangerous decision for the sake of her children. And Ryan and Greer join French Intelligence officers on a mission to track down Ali.
7. (1.05) “End of Honor” – Hanin requests political asylum for herself and her daughters in a refugee camp in Turkey, naming Suleiman as her husband and attracting the attention of the CIA. Following the viral terrorist attack in a Parisian church, Ryan manages to make contact with Suleiman, using the messaging board on a video game and posing as Ali.
8. (1.07) “The Boy” – Dr. Cathy Mueller, Ryan’s new girlfriend, is questioned about her Ebola report and is furious to discover that he works for the CIA. Meanwhile, Ryan and Greer try to convince CIA officials to use a covert ground assault on Suleiman’s headquarters in order to extract the latter’s son Samir on behalf of Hanin.