sberner-1 Reviews

Music Within (2007)

Is the movie serious?

[6/10 · 15 February 2011]

I ask because, if that is the actual Pimentel giving the speech in the included extras then it's pretty clear that the director intentionally cast someone much "better looking" by Hollywood standards than the real person to play the part; which really undermines the message. As one who hates discrimination, including discrimination against those who don't look or act "normal," I find it really sad that even a film about combating discrimination could not have as the central character someone a bit overweight. As if an audience would not buy the message if it were delivered by someone not "handsome" enough. The movie has a great story line, progress towards equality and opportunity win me over every time, but that casting choice kills it for me.

On the other hand, if that is not the real Pimentel in the extras, and Ron Livingston does look like him, then I do recommend this.

A Rose for Emily (1983)

A Dandelion for Emily

[4/10 · 4 April 2008]

SPOILER INCLUDED!! Though other screenwriters intentionally rejected the Faulkner story they were supposed to be adapting Chubbuck seems to have wanted to film "A Rose For Emily" but failed to understand the story. "A Rose for Emily" as written by Faulkner is efficiently told - there are no diversions or distractions. Chubbuck's attempts to flesh out a sparse tale jar: death at the table is death at the camera. More importantly, Faulkner's details matter. What happens to Emily's hair over time must - absolutely must be mentioned. It need not be trumpeted at high volume, and in fact subtly is better, but the story can not be told without that information being imparted. By keeping Huston's hair dark in the mortuary Chubbuck destroyed in the very first scene any chance he had of capturing the horror. As a consequence, those who don't know the story might not understand the ending. And those who do know it spend the next 26 minutes (out of 27) wondering what else will be not just wrong but fatally so.

I'm puzzled as to how this movie came to be made. Huston already had a name; Carradine and Houseman were already stars. Were they working for reduced pay? - if so, why? If not, how could a 27 minute movie have justified the budget? At under half an hour it was not going to make money in theaters and not much from broadcast rights. I had thought that this had been out of print since shortly after its release - I've just discovered that Pyramid is still selling it, but at $79 for VHS and $89 for DVD they can not expect to sell very many. And if this is being offered as a particularly polished product worth the money why is Lyndon Chubbuck's name misspelled on the box?

The Long, Hot Summer (1965–1966)

Bizarre adaptation

[7/10 · 22 February 2007]

Watching episodes is a supreme act of willing suspension of disbelief for a fan of author William Faulkner. Essentially all that remains of Faulkner's original creation is the Southern setting and a few character names. Given how little the television drama draws on the original, and how little drawing power Faulkner had at the time one wonders why producers went to the trouble and expense of getting the rights to Faulkner's name, when it would have been so easy to develop a series with the same characters and character relationships without the Faulkner link. This was not the last time that television fixated on this story - 20 years later came a three hour made-for-TV movie starring Don Johnson, Cybill Shepherd, and Jason Robards. Making LONG HOT SUMMER the most-filmed Faulkner story. About which one can only say: bizarre.

But for those of us devoted to all things Faulkner-related does anyone know how or where one might obtain the 26 (27?) episodes of this television series? I have eight and would like to watch the others. Cheryenne-Bodie, you seem extremely knowledgeable - any leads?