After Moray shook up The Paradise by jilting the powerful Katherine Glendenning, we’re back at this store a year later to see what’s new. Moray returns from Paris because Katherine, who now owns the store with her new husband, Mr. Tom Weston, a severe and scary man, summoned him. Katherine’s father has died. His loan put the store in his name as a means of keeping Moray faithful. That ploy didn’t work, but it won’t be easy for Moray to get the store back, as he’d like to.
Miss Audrey decides to marry Edmund, Denise’s uncle and she and go off to the seaside to live in a cottage her brother bequeathed to her. Ah, so now there’s a top position open in ladies’ wear. Who will get it Clara or Denise? In episode three Denise gets it in spite of Moray’s warning that the games between Katherine and Tom. Katherine’s drawn to this gloomy foreboding man. God knows why.
Episode 5 of 8 airs Sunday the 26th. Spoilers follow.
Tom treats his daughter, who’s about 7, terribly, belittling her, glaring at her and yelling at her not to touch his things! Miss Flora is sure to grow up in need of Dr. Freud’s expertise. Katherine is the kind stepmother, breaking a long held tradition, but she just indulges poor Flora with shopping trips. The girl has no playmates or friends. Poor thing.
I’ve liked the series and needed a dose of historical drama – corsets and all. I’m not sure whether I’m more draw by Denise’s romance with Moray or her ambition to run ladies’ wear and create the most magnificent department store in the Western world. I know Katherine’s plots are compelling. She’s someone I would watch with care. It’s clear that she want’s Denise to fail and fall as punishment for capturing Moray’s heart.
I miss Pauline, who was Clara and Denise’s roommate cum colleague. I didn’t catch what took her away. She did so want to marry. I should re-watch episode 1 to find out. Sam’s back and I’d like to see him in a more prominent role. He should be doing more at work, not just cutting cloth and uttering witticisms. Susy, who’s mother we learned is a drinker, replaced Pauline. She’s a good supporting character who needs to learn the ropes.
Tom has a back full of scars which Katherine uses to pull him under her influence, or try to. He’s very much a man who wants to be in charge, but he’s living in her father’s house and the money’s from her family. The scars on the back and dialog have suggested that he was attacked while retreating . . . hmm? What’s the story on that?
From week to week, my curiosity remains piqued as I want to know what Katherine’s up to, how Tom will react to any manipulation towards Moray and Denise which will reveal that Katherine married just to show Moray she could.
I didn’t know what to expect when I started watching A Man Called Peter (1955). It turns out it’s a biopic about Peter Marshall showing his life from the seminary. Of Scotch descent, Marshall (played by Richard Todd, whom I’ve never seen before) comes to America for seminary and by dint of his riveting oratory, becomes a popular preacher in Atlanta, New York and then Washington, DC. He preaches real deal Christianity, which is hard to take, especially for some a rich society lady who donates a lot of money Marshall’s unapologetic about his bold ministry but the main theme isn’t rebellion so eventually the movie doesn’t dwell on that conflict.
We see a minister who’s a whirlwind, so energetic it’s exhausting to watch. His wife was captivated by his charisma but soon he wears her out. It’s not that they divorce, but she does get ill and I don’t know how I’d deal with someone who’s constantly in motion. She does manage though.
In Washington, DC Marshall is named chaplain of the U.S. Senate and I loved watching him challenge the powerful. It was a shame that his life was cut short. That came as a complete surprise, but you can’t rewrite biography to suit your wishes.
The film would mainly interest Christians as Marshall’s pretty earnest. He’s very dynamic, but doesn’t go through any periods of doubt or dark night of the soul, which I think many modern viewers expect in their cinematic (or televised) clergy.
Stephen Neale (Ray Milland) gets released from a mental institution where he’s lived since he was charged with euthanasia of his sickly wife. His train makes a stop in a country town and at the urging of a kind conductor he steps out and goes over to the nearby country fair. He sees a fortune teller and wins a cake. This leads him to getting in trouble with Nazi’s who chase him and frame him with murder. He can’t trust anyone as everyone he meets — even a pretty, warm-hearted woman who runs a charity for widows and orphans with her brother — seems ready to turn him in.
Set during WWII Franz Lang’s Ministry of Fear (1944) is brimming with tension and suspense. The plot moves quickly and takes Neal to one creepy, yet sophisticated experience after another. Nothing is what it seems. While I read that Lang wanted to make an overtly anti-Nazi movie, the script writer didn’t provide him with the sort of horrible Nazi he could rail against. Based on a Graham Green novel, I found the film compelling. Green wouldn’t agree, I’ve learned. He thought it was awful, but then Green’s a perfectionist and master.
Starring Clive Owens and Juliet Binoche, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2380331/?ref_=nv_sr_1 focuses on two talented and cranky high school teachers. Owens teaches English while Binoche teaches art at an élite private school. Both demand a lot from their students and are disappointed with their own ability to produce the excellence they once did. Owens’ alcoholism is the main cause of his writers’ block, while Binoche’s rheumatoid arthritis hinders her painting.
They’re neither warm nor fuzzy ever rather they’ve embraced the “genius must be prickly loners” philosophy. They are rather interesting and the film moves along quickly. Owens likes to compete and when his students tell him that the new art teacher believes “words are lies,” he dreams up a Words vs. Pictures competition, which all characters do acknowledge is a false dichotomy.
The leads and Amy Brenneman, who plays the head of the school board, are compelling. I thought the students’ acting didn’t ring true. I’ve seen better chemistry and half way through most romantic films, I’m rooting for the opposites to work things out. Here I thought well, I wish these people well, but if they part company perhaps that is better.
All in all, it’s an okay movie, but it could have been better. It did make me think I wish Amy Brenneman had another TV series. I miss her down-to-earth appeal.
A fast-paced concise overview of Hong Kong’s protests.
Released in 1937 starring Sacha Guitry, Désiré is a comedy about a French woman and her household staff. Odette is a former actress who’s beau is a government Minister. Her staff includes a cook, a maid, a chauffeur we never see, but lacks a valet. The night before Odette, played by Guitry’s wife at the time, and her beau are to leave for the countryside, a chatty, meticulous valet comes to interview for the job. His references are impeccable and he’s hired. God forbid the couple goes to the country without a valet.
In the kitchen Désiré gets to know the maid and the cook. He’s very professional about his job and the hardest worker of the group, but also shares lots of observations about employers e.g. in a couple days a servant knows his employer well. In a year the servant can predict the employer’s every move and thought, yet after employing a servant for 5 years the employer probably doesn’t even know the servant’s last name. Touché.
Désiré’s previous employer intimates that while he was impeccable at his job, he made sexual overtures and therefore was let go. Odette is ready to send him packing but he persuades her to trust that it’ll never happen again.
All goes well until madam starts having dreams of Désiré making overtures. Her beau hears her calling out his name. Meanwhile Désiré also has dreams and the maid hears him calling out. Both don’t know what to do and try to hide the problem as best they can.
Désiré is a farce done with wit and intelligence. It makes some good points and is something of a counterpoint to Downton Abbey. Here the characters smoke and joke and toy with each other. Guitry is a fine comic actor who held my interest from start to finish.
I’ve heard that Bicycle Thief is a classic film but never saw it — till now. I got the DVD, and see that the title’s been correctly translated to Bicycle Thieves, which makes more sense. (Bravo, Criterion Collection!)
I wasn’t sure what I expected, but I didn’t expect the emotional power this simple movie packed.
In a nutshell, Bicycle Thieves shows the poverty of post-WWII Italy. Many men stand in line for job opportunities. Only a couple will get anything. Since he has a bicycle, Antonio Ricci is lucky enough to get a job putting up posters. He must have a bike. The first problem is that his bike has been pawned. It recoup it his wife Maria pawns the family’s sheets, sheets they got as wedding presents. Since this job will pay well and steadily and since there’s nothing else of value, pawning the sheets seems sensible. Though I did have a feeling of apprehension as soon as they got their money.
Antonio uses most of the money to recover his bike and starts work. As the title suggests it isn’t long before some ne’er-do-well, someone just as needy as Antonio steals the bike. The rest of the movie is the search for the thief and the bike. While it seems like little can be done with such a simple problem, director DeSica presents a journey through impoverished Rome that breaks your heart and shows you the self-absorbed rich, the dangers of pedophiles, the ties between a father and a son and the longing for better by people who’re more than willing to work for what they get.
The ending is particularly moving and well earned. The emotional journey we’re taken on is real. As a neo-realistic film Bicycle Thieves portrays life as it probably really was for many. I could definitely watch this again and again.