Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

ScoobieDoobs

Member
  • Content Count

    4.4k
  • Joined

Community Reputation

21.6k Excellent
  1. And what about Philippa as Helen? She was good & had a nice, credible, sisterly chemistry with Haley — but she’s a bit too cute/adorable & not really eccentric enough for the part. When she talked about being an “old maid”, I laughed. Sorry, nuh-uh, wasn’t buying anyone could see Philippa as an old maid. Sure, Margaret & Tibby said she’s “odd” or “mad” often enough — and yet Philippa doesn’t really carry it off. She seems more overly dramatic or bratty, rather than odd or mad. Now, Helena Bonham Carter got the quirkiness required for this part perfectly in the ‘92 film.
  2. See, but here’s the great Forster irony — that this production correctly highlights. H & M are clearly nice & thoughtful women & their intentions toward Leonard may have been good — yet their end was awful, and they didn’t help them at all. And the other irony here is that H & M would not have been able to help the Basts, no matter what they did. Leonard had a weak heart & would likely have died young & Jacky was sickly & would probably have also died eventually. I liked Margaret, but her abrupt cut-off of Leonard & Jacky turned me off. Seemed harsh & brutally cold to me. She prioritized her own position with Henry over the Basts’ well-being. Ick. And Helen’s offer of 5 thou to Leonard, even tho Tibby said it was half of what she had, seemed shallow to me. Was she so clueless, she wouldn’t understand that a clearly proud fellow like Leonard wouldn’t accept such charity? She could have helped them in some less direct way, but she seemed too self-absorbed to think how. The end may have been ultimately happy for Margaret & Henry, and Helen & Baby Bast, but it’s tainted by the ugly end for Leonard (and likely grim end for Jacky) — or are we supposed to forget about the Basts?
  3. Idk, if you think about it, Leonard was a pretty stupid, self-destructive guy, who mostly made terrible choices in his life. When told about what happened with Bast’s demise, Henry was dismissive. He’s not necessarily cruel, but dispassionate — and I agreed. Helen’s reaction was kinda nutty. Look, it was Leonard’s decision to quit a perfectly good job. Even he was skeptical at first, when M & H told him about the “likely” downfall of his company, as told to them by Henry. He didn’t have to heed their warning. Ah, but Forster is all about ironies — and man, there are a ton of them here, eh? I didn’t remember that it was actually Henry who egged on Charles to “thrash” Bast. Well, maybe Charles took that task on his own, but Henry certainly made clear he wanted Charles to toss M & H out of Howard’s End, Yeesh, very ugly! This version really makes you wonder why the heck Leonard is with Jacky. She looks old enough to be his mother & she seems really sickly — she’s an all around burden. So what gives? Is Leonard such a charitable fellow? It’s never made clear here & doesn’t make much sense. In the ‘92 film it’s made very clear. That Jacky was all about sex, sex, sex. He just had absolutely nothing else in common with her — and he did have cultural aspirations, which is why Leonard & Helen hooking up in the’92 film flowed so much better than it does here. Helen described their hookup to M briefly here, but it didn’t seem too believable. Forster clearly wanted to make statements about hypocrisies of the upper classes. Yes, H & M may have been well-intentioned about the Basts & yet their lives are made worse — and Leonard ends up being violently murdered, and Jacky is likely to suffer a grim end, all while M & H live on comfortably & happily. I thought it was particularly cruel of Margaret to so abruptly write Leonard she could not help him find a job. She could have tried to help him in some way when he so desperately needed it. But she put her own position with Henry first. It revealed her to be quite a hypocrite! She thinks of herself as kind & thoughtful, but she certainly was not here . . .
  4. The book stressed that Henry is disgraced by Charles’ actions against Bast. His life is altered forever because of it. That is not clear here. But no matter. The scene where Margaret says she has forgiven Wilcox for his supposed sins & she expects him to forgive Helen for the same “sins”, was highlighted in the book (& the ‘92 film), just as it is here. It was well done. Charles’ attack on Bast was way more violent here than in the ‘92 film. It was effective. But this version works as a whole because of the actors. Haley & MM are riveting. A bit of a surprise for me cuz I think of MM as only Mr. Darcy — an unpleasant, dour, sad-sack. Here, he shows us he’s really a fine actor. This Wilcox is quite different than in the ‘92 film. Hopkins’ Wilcox was haughty, humorless & outwardly cruel & thoughtless. He was mostly a pretty nasty piece of work. MM’s Wilcox may be oblivious, but he mostly seems like a jovial nice guy, if a bit of a hypocrite. Man, he’s quite unaware of who he is — that is, until Margaret deliciously clues him in. What’s missing here is Helen ever hooking up with Bast. Er, when did they do that? With a sick & sleeping Jacky nearby? Really? Ew, guess I’ll skip pondering too much on that. I liked the upbeat ending, but still, when Margaret & Wilcox were walking off together, I was expecting to hear Sex & the City music . . . Btw, did anyone notice Howards End looked spooky & creepy when it was sitting empty? But when Helen’s & Margaret’s things were unpacked, it started to look sorta cozy. And at the end, when Helen is playing outside with Baby Bast, we can see the exterior has lush vines growing all over & the house now looks charming, rather than spooky. That was very subtle & rather sweet.
  5. I’ve seen much discussion elsewhere, objecting to the Jacky here being black. Was this a purposeful choice by producers? Some say it is historically inaccurate or too politically correct — and not the original intent of Forster. I have no prob with it. Within the confines of this production, seems to fit OK. But according to the book, Jacky is definitely an outcast/reject from society — and Bast is too, because of his connection to her. So is the reason for her outcast-from-society status because of her race — according to this production? That’s pretty far off from Forster’s original intent. The Jacky in the ‘92 film was not a particularly good or memorable actress, but she struck the right note for the character & what Forster intended her to be — loud, tacky & obviously “low class”. This Jacky is too tasteful & beautiful to carry that off. I’m also a bit bothered by the lack of chemistry btw this Bast & Helen. And this Bast seems so taken with Jacky, it’s hard to believe he’d suddenly have sex with Helen, while Jacky is in the next room. I know, men can be dogs, but this Bast has been played as so upright & uptight, it seems off to me.
  6. I think they made some interesting casting choices here. Most work, but a few are much less effective than the ‘92 film. Julia Ormond is an OK actress, but she ain’t Vanessa Redgrave, not by a long shot! Still, she had a nice chemistry with Haley. And Haley ain’t Emma, but who is? She’s fine here. And I like the chemistry btw Haley & Phillippa— it is very much like the Dashwood sisters. Very sweet when they’re walking arm-in-arm. MM is 15 years away from his Mr. Darcy days & he does look much older, but he makes Mr. Wilcox a hot middle-aged daddy, who’s kinda likable. Pretty far cry from Anthony Hopkin’s grouchy, almost elderly version of Wilcox. Is this what Forster intended? Probably not. He meant for there to be a significant age diff btw Wilcox & Margaret. Here, they look more like Carrie & Mr. Big. Eh, so what? They’re good together. This Leonard is less handsome than in the 92 film, but with his popped out eyes & nervous demeanor, he’s much more intriguing. This Jacky is off. Not because she’s black, which I think adds an interesting element — she’s too demure, too soft-spoken, too elegant, too attractive & a bit too old. Jacky should be coarse & crass & loud & a nuisance. This Jacky isn’t carrying it off. She’s also not as strong an actress as the others. Seen 3 eps so far & have really enjoyed it. What’s missing here, that’s such a huge part of the 92 film, is the detailed & exceptional attention to scenery & costumes. It’s not missing entirely here, but neither the scenery or costumes are impressive. You must see the 92 film to understand what I mean. If you love house porn (and I do), you’ll be in heaven!
  7. Jeez, Rachel’s manner was so happy & peppy & giddy last nite. Uh, WTF? What she was saying sure as hell wasn’t. She sounded very somber & real when she said everything is very fluid (it absolutely is) & she’s not going to make any predictions. Good move. But still, the content of what she was saying was so glum & depressing — and yet her manner was the exact opposite. I don’t object, but it made me wonder if she had a belt or 2 before going on air . . .
  8. Bondy seems OK — maybe he’s got resting creepy-face? Rach, get to the Pompeo-curses-out-NPR-reporter story! I so want her to spotlight him showing off who he really is . . .
  9. So Val Demings included a short clip of Rachel interviewing Lev, when arguing for an amendment last nite. Yay, Rach! Watching this Impeachment is making me nauseous & anxious, but seeing Rach (even for a brief & fleeting moment) was nice. Made me smile for a sec, but now I’m back to feeling anxious & nauseous . . . Btw, did Val include a clip of Anderson interviewing Lev? Noooo. Just sayin’!
  10. For me, the comparison of Lev’s interviews with Rach & AC was not about slamming AC. Just thought it really highlights how Rachel has been so prepared for this interview. Her book touched on many of the characters Lev dealt with & she’s been talking about this stuff every nite for years now, trying to make sense of it & asking the same questions she was asking Lev. AC’s producers (and maybe CNN too) sliced up his interview with Lev & destroyed much of any impact it may have had. Didn’t matter anyway. Nobody can compare with how ready Rachel was. That’s why I’d love for her to face down Pompeo. Oh, you can be sure that smiling fuck is scared shitless to face Rachel.
  11. Again, I watched Lev with Anderson Cooper (who I like), but it did make me wonder why his interview was so off & ineffective -- and Rachel's interview with Lev was probably the best of her career. What I noticed, which really surprised me, is that Lev seems kinda smart. His looks & manner are misleading. I figured he'd barely be able to put 2 words together & he'd be cagey as hell. He was the total opposite. He was very straight-forward with Rach, and even articulate & sharp. His observations were consistent with what is known, but they showed him to be intuitive & really worth listening to. I was ready to dismiss Lev as too shady & not credible or worthy of paying any attention to. So kudos to Rach that she didn't do that & she realized just how valuable this interview was for her to do. And she also squelched any reflex she may have had to mock Lev, which couldn't have been easy. Good move, Rach, cuz it led to an extremely informative interview -- much more so than Anderson's was. But really . . . who in any media now is better equipped than Rachel to handle an interview with a character like Lev? Anderson? Oh please. When Rachel said she had a few questions for Pompeo, I thought -- Oh, how I would luv for you to interview that POS, Rach!
  12. "He fired her many times, but she wouldn't leave." OK, that quote was repeated by Rach & put in a graphic at the bottom. Well, that's wrong, Lev -- that's absolutely NOT what happened. And why did you quote this, Rach & put it in a graphic? Wish Rach would have clearly corrected this right after she showed him saying it. OK, she did eventually, but it bothered me. "That's not the only time he fired her." It was an odd way of Lev phrasing what happened. But at least Rach did emphasize how he ordered her fired & nobody carried it out for at least a year. Did Lev guarantee Rach first crack at interviewing him? Guess he didn't give her any exclusivity cuz he went right over to blab to Anderson.. Except Anderson's convo with him was dull, & it was cut up in a way that made it all seem much less dramatic than it is. Actually, AC's piss-poor, ineffective interview with Lev spotlighted what a great job Rachel did here. Rachel has a history of being soft & weak in interviews. But she was absolutely on point with Lev. And her producers did some great editing & Rachel's narration was totally on target & clear. Honestly, I think she deserves an Emmy for this.
  13. Idk. I know you love getting scoops, Rach, but I just hope that Lev isn't playing you. What made me very suspicious (and Rach was very skeptical on this too) was Parnas' take on Hyde & this loon's stalker rantings on Amb. Yovanovitch. As regular viewers of Rach, we know well that Rachel has routinely mocked Lev . . . er, so he's OK with opening up to HER? Really? Yeah, yeah, yeah, LOD was going nuts with Rach over this interview. Sorry, I couldn't get with their enthusiasm. Look, Lev is a very, very shady & sinister character & he clearly has credibility issues. And right after the Rach/LOD lovefest/congratulations-on-the-"scoop" stuff, Barb (thank goodness for her), threw much needed cold water on that convo & the Rach interview with Lev. Barb said this kinda informant info happens all the time, but it is essential for it to be verified & confirmed thoroughly. Sooo, did Rach do that? Oh, Rach, I really hope this isn't another getting-Trump's-taxes fiasco. Not everything Lev said can be verified. I see this as similar to Michael Cohen. Most of what he said was mocked & dismissed. Whatever Lev is saying will probably be also. Sigh, I really wish you'd leave the scoops to others Rach, cuz this is just not your strength at all.
  14. Yeah, there is some personal connection w/Booker. She & Al Sharpton were trying hard to make Booker happen, but he just never had any momentum as a candidate. Ah, but this is Rach. If you like her, I guess you must also accept her Booker love & her endless comparisons of whatever happens in the news to past history. Hopefully, that needless, way too long interview with him will be the last one (at that length of time anyway). Oh, Booker’s POV is certainly welcome, but not for 20 minutes. He’s a nice guy & intelligent & passionate, but move on & get over it, Rach. He seems fine with it, you should be too, Rach.
  15. Rach, why waste all that precious show time on Booker? He’s another failed candidate. Yawn, who cares? I tuned out, not interested in the least.
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size