lilitha-1

Every age has its myths. In the medieval period, King Arthur and his knights were Christians in service of God and the Church and on the quest of the Holy Grail. Lancelot later portrayed the chivalric knight who worshiped his lady in courtly love. Mallory gave us a King Arthur who served, not the Church, but the country and his knights served him. Victorian/Edwardian writers gave us the perfect English gentlemen who served king and country (Queen Victoria and the Empire). Marion Zimmer Bradley gave us the Arthurian legends with a feminist view in THE MISTS OF AVALON. In the 2004 film KING ARTHUR by Antione Fuqua and David Franzoni we are given the vision of a post 9/11 King Arthur. Here Arthur and his knights are portrayed as ordinary blokes with the warrior ethos. One might say this is the masculinist vision. They are soldiers. That's their job and they do it. Let's go back to the question the Grail asks; "Who do you serve?" At first the commander Arturius Castus (Clive Owen), a Roman-Brit, serves the Roman Empire, which has become the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church. After performing a SAVING PRIVATE RYAN type mission to get Alecto to safety and upon learning that the teachings of Pelagius have been deemed heretical, he no longer can serve the ideas of these repressive organizations. It is important that we know that he is a Pelagian Christian, because the ideas of Pelagius crop up again a thousand years after this era as the Protestant reformation. Although Arthur is a Christian, he is tolerant of the pagan ideas of men, who are foreign (Samatian) and non-Christian. He even goes out of his way to save the pagan native Britons from the religious fanaticism of the Christians. The knights don't have much respect for the native Britons, whom they condescendingly call "woads". Arthur, however, persuades them to fight for the Britons against the invading Saxons. Arthur has a new cause to serve, giving the Britons freedom and liberty. These are not concepts with which Romans, Saxons, Britons or Samatians would be familiar. These ideas are born in age of Enlightenment, which later gave rise to the American Revolution. The Saxons are portrayed as ancient and not-too-bright Klingons. Even though the Saxons come from the frozen Northlands, they somehow are not intelligent enough to fight in ice and snow. Of course, King Arthur and his men with the help of the Britons win. Merlin and the Britons and their culture are given short shrift in this movie. They are basically portrayed as noble savages who must be saved. Women too are very scarce. There is Bors' mate, who has 11 children by him and is tough enough to handle the gruff Bors; and then there is Guinevere (Keira Knightley). Guinevere is a warrior like the knights and is hard enough to fight alongside the men. No frilly, sissy girls here. In the area of sex, she is the aggressor and chooses to bed the boring Arthur in the mandatory sex scene, which lacks any romance or sensuality. The sexual tension between Guinevere and the far more interesting Lancelot (Ioan Gruffud) is hinted at but never comes to fruition. Even though this film was promoted as the historical Arthur from whom the legend arises, it is clear that this Arthur is no more historically accurate than the Arthurs of the previous eras. From the costumes to the military methods to the mores and customs, there are abundant examples of anachronisms. For those familiar and interested in history, this film offers nothing. For those who love the mythopoeic beauty of the earlier Arthurian legends, this film offers nothing. So what does this murky, bleak film offer? The Viking warriors were promised Valhalla upon their death in battle. The Greek hero had the Elysian Fields. The Christian warriors have Heaven. The Muslim warrior is promised Paradise. This film suggests that if one follows the example of the "historical" Arthur and his men and fight and die, not for one's own freedom, but for the freedom and liberty of others, one will be remembered in legend and myths for all time. Ironically those who will find this movie the most satisfying are also the ones that don't remember the oxymoronic ordinary heroes of history.

A young lady washes up on the shores of Point Pleasant. Chistina Nickson (Elisabeth Harnois) is half human and, well, her father is the Devil. Since we, the viewers, know this from the beginning, the anxiety we are suppose to feel is just absent. In a world that has all-too-human devils in the form of terrorists of various ilks, are the Devil's daughter and her turmoil actually interesting or scary? In POINT PLEASANT, the answer is no. There is no reason to care about the protagonist. Unlike the old Gothic soap DARK SHADOWS, which had the sympathetic character of the governess Victoria Winter to draw the viewer into the lives and secrets of Collinswood, Christina is vapid and cold; she is virtually interchangeable with her antagonist Paula Hardgrove. In fact, most of the younger characters are identical and bland. Luckily for the viewers, we do have Richard Burgi, Susan Walters, Alex Carter, and Dina Meyer playing the parental generation. They have life and character. They are more than just pretty faces. Grant Show, as the Devil's disciple Lucas Boyd, has great lines. Unfortunately, they fall flat because he is playing against mostly empty, unintelligent, humorless characters. This brings us to another problem with this paranormal fantasy series; well, it just takes itself too seriously. None of the characters has a sense of humor! Humor is a part of being human, even if one is only half human like Christina. We are left longing desperately for the tongue-in-cheek tone of DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES. Lastly, the whole premise would fit into a movie. Wow, in fact it has been a movie or two -- THE DEVIL'S DAUGHTER (1973) and TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER (1976). My guess is someone at the network said, "Give me THE OC with THE OMEN," but what we actually have is a snoozefest. (Rating 4/10).

Bodice-Ripper Mentality

Henry as played by Ray Winstone is a brawling, bawling, beastly Bluebeard. I realize Henry VIII was a spoiled brat of a king, reigning at the time when being an absolute monarch meant something, but the Tudors were also craftily intelligent. This Henry just appears to be a demanding brute. There is very little attempt to portray his intelligence or his charm. He may have been king (and it's good to be king), but when he wanted to Henry could be charming. It doesn't come through here. The history itself is a bit screwy. Let's call it history lite. There is a bodice-ripper mentality to the writing. Let's get into the hairshirt with Katherine of Aragon or the sex with Anne Boleyn. Let's show brutal war at its most brutal. Yes, war really is horrid and the Renaissance Europe was a cruel place, but the feeling of this piece is not the historical value of violence and sex, but rather for their voyeuristic quality. It's a bit smarmy. The acting was melodramatic, relieved only by good performances by Charles Dance and Sean Bean and their characters die fairly quickly. This was 3 unpleasant hours that I don't want to repeat again. Classic classy British fair, NOT.

*Spoilers* caution VERONICA MARS has been compared to BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER or TWIN PEAKS meets NANCY DREW, but Veronica Mars ain't your mom's Nancy Drew. Veronica Mars is a detective film noir with a teen girl as the protagonist/detective. Her beat is not the Los Angeles of the 1950s but the Southern California beach town of Neptune in the early 21st century. Veronica works for her dad, the former sheriff of the county. She is dealing with a lot of things. There is the loss of her best friend, Lily Kane, through an unsolved murder, the loss of her boyfriend, who is the brother of the dead girl, the loss of status, the loss of her mother, and the loss of her own virginity through a rape, about which she has never told anyone. Veronica loss of her virginity is a gritty reminder of the loss of the innocence of her high school life. Like the hero detectives of film noir she is a person who wants to do the right thing but is often misunderstood. And like film noir, no one is as they appear. The gang leader has a family and a heart. He too must stand alone, misunderstood. The rich kids have their own problems. The former boyfriend obliviously still cares for Veronica but can't reach out too far because of family and friends. This show is beautiful filmed in Southern California locations. Neptune is located somewhere near San Juan Capistrano. The lighting is fabulous. The locations are perfect. Camelot Motel where Veronica's Mom is having an affair with Jake Kane (Lily's dad and Mr. Mars' #1 suspect) is so aptly named. Camelot after all was destroyed by the adulterous affair of Guenivere and Lancelot. I hope that VERONICA MARS will stay on the air and find an audience. It has great writing and good actors. There are mysteries and cases to be solved every week with the major mystery being the murder of Lily Kane. If Veronica solves the Lily's murder will she be redeemed or will more pain just follow? Stay tuned.

Man, oh, man, lots of negativity out there! It's just fun, guys. Come along for the fun. First of all good actors. Not just pretty boys neither, although I love the pretty boys. They may have Fox take off his shirt, but how about Ms. Lilly's try out for Victoria's newest angel? Okay, so there's some eye candy for everyone. Big deal. At least being semi-clothed on a hot tropical island is reasonable. Good writing and plot. Taking it slow. In these days of instant coffee, instant access & instant gratification, isn't it nice to be teased a little? Yeah, it is. Love the little plot twists. Charlie's got a addiction. Sayid was Republican Guard. Nice contemporary irony. Yeah, he's are current official enemy but hey, he's so helpful. Now were you really expecting that! And Kate, well she owned some really interesting bracelets, didn't she? Can't wait for everyone else's dirty secrets to surface in flashbacks. Okay, the plane engine was a goof. But everyone caught it. Don't get hammered down in reality. This is no more reality than well a "reality" show. The sci-fi elements. I'm thinking Island of Dr. Moreau meets Jurassic Park. The dog. Is he the boy Michael's dog or native to the Island? Maybe the animals own the Island. Maybe the animals have more the human intelligence. Maybe the Island is animal research that went wrong. Maybe the Island is intelligent itself. There are lots of possibilities. And that's the fun. What's gonna happen next! Not entertaining, only if you have LOST your sense of fun and wonder and become a jaded 13 year old.

Since it was on television, I didn't expect it to be "Lord of the Rings," as apparently some others did. They wouldn't have the budget. After seeing such horrosities as "The Druids" based on a Norman Spinrad novel and the American series "Roar" based on goodness knows what (The Romans in Ireland!), this was not bad, but not great. Celtic-Roman history seems to be beyond film/television writers ken. Maybe they need to read a little.

I actually liked the main player, Alex Kingston. I didn't watch ER, so I have no preconceptions about her. I liked most of the actors. I think the problem does not lie with the actors, but the script and this appalling need to make things relevant. It can be done, but it doesn't have to be done, and it was done badly here.

It would have been far more interesting to have a scene where Boudicca uses divination with a rabbit as described in Dio or show the statue of Victory fall rather than the statue of the Roman emperor. Both the Britons and the Romans were very prone to omens and portents. I suppose they thought the audience would not get it. Hello, that's what good writing does! Explains things we don't know.

I didn't mind the accents. We all know the Roman generals and emperors spoke with upper class British accents! We saw Lawrence Olivier in "Spartacus." We watched "I, Claudius.";)

I liked that they had the Britons lime their hair and paint up with woad, but costuming needed to be brighter and jewelry needed to be richer. However, this seems to be a general trend among costumers in film/television; they think that ancient peoples dressed dully. In fact, most ancient peoples dressed in brilliant colors. Positively garish by our standards. They did have Boudicca & her husband dress a little better when they meet Emperor Claudius. In fact, they look like a color drawing straight out of a costume book I have. However, a king and queen of a people would be far better dressed in this.

As for caricature of Nero, the Roman writers don't seem all that fond of him, either. I knew before I watched this how Boudicca died, so I assumed (wrongly perhaps) that they simply didn't show it. However Tacitus says she took poisoned and died. Dio says she got sick and died. The fate of her daughters is not mentioned by either. And they have no names either.

I wasn't expecting exact history here. Or a documentary. I was expecting a really good historical adventure and romp. It is better than other attempts at ancient Celtic-Roman stories. But it would have been far better if the writers had stuck closer to Roman accounts and stopped trying to brain us with relevancy.