jash-1 Reviews

A Bit of Fry and Laurie (1987–1995)

Hilarious

[9/10 · 26 August 2006]

I liked Jeeves & Wooster a lot. But it wasn't until I saw BlackAdder that I truly became a fan of Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie. Over the years I have shifted more toward Laurie than Fry, with "House" completing that shift. (Okay, I'm a House fanatic.) But, living in the U.S., I had never been able to see ABOFAL (other than the occasional sketch posted to the internet). Fortunately, the first two series are now out on DVD. And I've just finished watching the first one.

These men are spectacular together. The acting is beyond reproach. But it is the writing that deserves special note. It is sharp, funny, sly, silly and merciless in skewering the pompous and the ordinary alike. But, above all, it never condescends. They assume the audience is a smart as they are.

I'm tempted to give an example, but so many of the sketches have hilarious twists at the end and I wouldn't want to ruin any of the punchlines for future viewers. But I can promise you at least two or three laugh-out-loud moments in every episode (even if you are watching all by yourself, as I was.)

I do have one quibble which kept me from giving ABOFAL a score of 10. The person who mixed the soundtrack on the DVDs should be taken out and tortured. Slowly. And painfully. There is a laugh track that is silent until they get to a punchline. Then it is dropped in, loudly enough to rattle the walls, frequently ruining the next line. And, in the final sketch in Series 1, the music actually drowns out the actors.

Edit - I have since learned that ABOFAL did not use laugh tracks. The laughter was from the studio audiences (and those tapes have since been used as laugh tracks on other shows.) So the problem was not that they added laughter too loudly, just that the DVDs had a sound mixer who did not comprehend that letting the at-home audience hearing the dialog is more important than proving that the studio audience enjoyed themselves at the taping.

Not Without My Daughter (1991)

Okay movie, disturbing comments

[10 October 2004]

While I was re-watching bits of this movie a few weeks ago, I read the user comments here at IMDb and was very disturbed. Since it is still bothering me, I decided to write my own comments on the movie and on what has been said here.

First, the movie. It is about an international custody battle. That is a very real problem in this day and age. When couples from different countries break up they often each want the children to live with them and grow up in the country (and culture) in which they were raised. Each naturally thinks the way he or she was raised is better for their children.

This movie is Betty Mahmoody's story. And the culture clash is between the United States and Iran. It takes place in 1984. The Ayatollah Khomeini was still very much the leader Iran and the Iran-Iraq war had been going on for 4 years and would continue for another 4. Iran was quite isolated from much of the world at that time.

And 'Moody' Mahmoody, an Iranian-born doctor practicing in the U.S., brings his American wife, Betty, and their daughter, Mahtob, to Iran for a visit. When they arrive, Moody is dismayed at the changes in Iran, especially the breakdown of the education system and the resulting shortage of doctors. Then he becomes an ultra, ultra fundamentalist Muslim – so reactionary he makes suicide bombers look moderate. He demands that Betty dress and behave how he thinks a good Muslim wife should and wants their daughter to be raised to do the same. He becomes physically abusive to Betty. If she wants to return to America, it is fine with him, but Mahtob will remain with him in Iran. So Betty plans a dangerous escape for herself and her daughter.

Does the movie work? Somewhat. 'Women in peril' movies are always a guilty pleasure and Sally Field is a good actress. The biggest problem is with Moody's character. Alfred Molina is a wonderful actor, but it's hard to do much with a character that undergoes such a radical change in his basic character in a matter of weeks. I kept expecting to learn that he had once been diagnosed as psychotic or schizophrenic.

Is the movie unfair to the Iranian people? Again, somewhat. Virtually all the characters in the movie except Betty and Mahtob are Iranian. Some are good. Some are bad. But you can't have a 'woman in peril' with no peril. And that is provided by Moody and his family. But the people who help Betty escape are also Iranian. What unfairness there is lies not in maligning the Iranian people (it doesn't do that) but in implying (and sometimes saying explicitly) that the Iranian culture is inferior just because it is not westernized. As a free American woman I would not want to live in any fundamentalist society, regardless of which religion was in control. But post-revolution Iran is no more representative of thousands of years of Persian culture than Italy under Mussolini was representative of a land that produced the Roman Empire and Michelangelo.

Is the movie unfair to Moody? No, because this is BETTY's story. Talk to anyone in a bitter custody battle and they'll tell you all about why their ex is evil. And they wouldn't be lying. They are giving you their point of view. That doesn't mean Moody doesn't have a different point of view which is equally true and equally untrue (and which, I gather from the comments, was explored in another movie.) But 'Not Without My Daughter' doesn't pretend to be a sociological examination into the two sides of a dispute. Let me repeat for the third time, this is BETTY's story.

That brings me to why some of the comments disturb me so much. I would fully understand if some viewers thought the movie was silly or inaccurate or biased. But several writers have used their reviews as an excuse to joyfully bash the United States. My favorite was 'Who died and made Americans god to do movies about other countries??' That writer is from Sweden but doesn't seem to have a problem with Jan Troell making 'The New Land' (Nybyggarna) about America. And, were we to listen to her, we wouldn't have 'An American in Paris' or 'The Killing Fields' or 'Out of Africa' or 'Amadeus' (all of which are much better films than 'Not Without My Daughter.') But in the United States we have freedom of speech. That means that movie producers are free to make any movie to which they think they can sell tickets. And, as a member of the viewing public, when I disagree with what they are saying I have a very simple remedy. I don't buy a ticket.

Broadcast News (1987)

A choice of style vs. substance and neither wins

[14 February 2004]

I LOVE this film.

Holly Hunter is perfect as a woman wound so tight she schedules time to break down. She admits that she hates `knowing more than anyone else' on any subject, but she can't help herself. Her Jane Craig is like a ball of energy attracting or repelling others who come within range. She holds herself and everyone around her to a standard that is almost impossible to achieve and it is exhausting. She could never be an on-air personality. Jane has to be behind the scenes, controlling everything.

It makes perfect sense that her best friend is the acerbic Aaron (Albert Brooks). He has everything going for him except charisma. And knowing that he is never going to go any further in his career because he isn't pretty enough has embittered him. Personally, I think he should have worked in print journalism where he could have been a star. (In 1987, when this movie was made, it was rare to see someone who didn't look like a department store dummy on the local news.)

The third leg in this triangle is William Hurt's Tom. He has nothing going for him except charisma. Hurt does very well with a difficult acting challenge, namely playing someone who is just a little bit dim. He is always a step behind and he knows it. It even shows in his eyes. Yet for me his is the least compelling character because I don't think Hurt is gorgeous, I find his looks bland. So there is no reason for Jane and Jennifer (Lois Chiles) to be so interested in him.

The ending works for me. There was no way for either romance to work. Tom will never understand Jane's professional ethics (where faking the news IS a serious offense) and that would have broken them up eventually. And she and Aaron are past the point where they could become romantically involved. But, despite spending seven years as the head of the Washington bureau of a major network, she has learned to loosen up a bit and even has a romantic relationship that is working.

Jack Nicholson's part is really a cameo, a `thank you' to James L. Brooks who wrote and directed `Terms of Endearment' which won Nicholson his second Oscar.

The choice of Tom vs. Aaron echoes the theme of this movie. It is style vs. substance and how, in today's society we have begun to mistake the former for the later. The theme is perfectly summed up in Aaron's `Tom is the devil' speech . . . `How about that. I buried the lead.'

Score 9 out of 10.