Category Archives: TV & Movies

HBO’s Hemingway & Gellhorn Should’ve Been Gellhorn & Hemingway!

Last night I watched the new HBO Movie “Hemingway & Gellhorn,” not really sure who Gellhorn was, not sure why I cared—am not a particular fan of Hemingway the Man even if I recall enjoying Farewell to Arms and the Sun Also Rises.  I tend to think of him as an alcoholic and a bully, a view which this film did not dispel. That said, the movie hooked me and I stayed that way through the entire 2 1/2 hours, mostly thanks to a terrific performance by Nicole Kidman, who plays Martha Gellhorn so well that by the end of the evening I was reading up on Ms. Gellhorn in fascination.

Gellhorn, who died in 1998, was perhaps one of the best war correspondents of the 20th Century, with a career spanning more than sixty years.  From the Spanish Civil War through World War II to the Middle East and more, she was there bringing each conflict home in exquisite, agonizing detail.  I found an article she wrote about flying with a Black Widow Squadron in WWII.  Read it, you’ll appreciate a great, moving piece of journalism.  I’d like to read more of her work.

Kidman outshone Clive Owen‘s Ernest Hemingway.  That doesn’t mean I think Owen did a terrible job—he was good, but I kept seeing Clive Owen, not Papa Hemingway.   Of course, my opinion of Hemingway is that of an irascible individual and perhaps in the days of Hemingway and Gellhorn he was a bit more perky, more upbeat, more like Owen’s portrayal.  I have been a fan of Clive Owen’s since way, way back when he was the Chancer on a UK TV series and I’m still a huge fan.  He probably had the harder role—trying to make likable, or at least understandable, a selfish drunk. (But let me not mince words here!)

The film focuses on the romance between Hemingway and Gellhorn, beginning with a flirtation in Sloppy Joe’s bar in Key West (now Captain Tony’s–been there!) and culminating in their marriage on the eve of World War II.  Gellhorn is the ambitious one, keen to go to a war zone and report on the ground. Hemingway is much more inclined to remain at home, in Cuba or Key West, fishing and partying, although he goes with her on many assignments, reporting separately—until he finally subverts her attempts to report on D-Day.  I had the feeling he was jealous of her reputation, possessive and needy in the extreme.

I found this quote from Gellhorn about her marriage to Hemingway:  “I feel quite sick, I cannot describe this to you. Shivering sick. I watch him adoring his image, with such care and such tolerance and such accuracy in detail … I weep for the eight years I spent … worshipping his image with him, and I weep for whatever else I was cheated of due to that time-serving.”   Regrets? She had a few…

This is more Gellhorn’s story than Hemingway’s.  She emerges independent and strong—even heroic.  Should have been titled “Gellhorn & Hemingway.”  I liked the film, though I gather it has had mixed reviews, some of which I’ve included below.  Curious to hear your views.

Related articles

“Princess of Montpensier” – Not Perfect, But Worth Watching

Article first published as Movie Review: The Princess of Montpensier - Not a Perfect Film, But Worth Watching on Blogcritics.

The Princess de Montpensier in French with English subtitles

Not to proselytize for Netflix, but they have refined their film categories to include excellent sub-categories for “Period Pieces” and “Royalty,” to the delight of this History Lady.  First up under “Royalty” queue was “Le Princesse de Montpensier,” a story about love and jealousy set in civil war-ridden France in 1567.

Against the background of religious wars is the story of French noblewoman Marie de Mezieres. Marie is infatuated with her cousin, Henri, Duc de Guise yet is given in an arranged marriage to Philippe, Prince de Montpensier.  At first she is reconciled to the marriage and settles into life in rural France where she is tutored by Philippe’s old teacher – Francois, Count de Chabannes – learning to read, write and studying philosophy.  In the process, Chabannes develops an unrequited love her.

Philippe returns from the war, she tries to make him happy, but he’s a jealous sort and when the Duc de Anjou visits with her former beau Henri de Guise in tow, his flirtatious behavior sets Philippe into a rage. The more Philippe’s jealousy grows, the more Marie succumbs to Henri’s amorous attentions. Henri’s a soldier, most comfortable when he is battling for something – in this case her affections in a rivalry between Philippe, himself and the Duc de Anjou. Marie, condemned by her husband as a flirt, fancies herself in love with Henri and imagines a future with him.

In a film where everyone desires her, no one really loves her except Chabannes – who loves her enough to want to see her happy with someone else. He  helps her spend a night with Henri before she’s sent back to the country in disgrace – and earns himself dismissal from the Montpensier household.  He rides away, and is later killed in a massacre of Huguenots, but has left a letter for Marie, warning her of Henri’s vacuuousness.  She does not listen and leaves her husband, hoping Henri will ditch his fiancé for her.  But he does not, Henri is exactly who Chabannes said he was.

Marie ends up without a lover, a husband or an admirer, having given up on love.  It is not clear if she’s given it all up and will turn to learning, or religion, but in the last scene she realizes that Chabannes love was the truest of them all.  I struggled with the ending, wanting more for Marie than exile and solitude.

What I love about French period films (Seraphine, Tous les Matins du Monde and La Reine Margot are some of my favorites) is their pace – it is slower and more thoughtful than many US—or even UK—dramas, allowing a respite from action to consider the character’s inner conflict.

This film has incredibly beautiful costumes and set design – authentic to the period, and the location shoots are in exquisite country (no CGI here!).  The acting is overall very good–except for the role of Philippe.  Coupled with a nice glass or two of Merlot, it’s a good evening’s entertainment.

“Le Princess de Montpensier”

Related articles

“Anonymous” Suspends Belief

Portrait of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxfor...

Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

Before I went to see Roland Emmerich‘s “Anonymous” I did a bit of research on the film’s premise, which is that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford was the author of Shakespeare’s plays.  Indeed, there exists a whole De Vere  Society going back some 200 years whose members believe Shakespeare was a fake, apparently Shakespearean actor Kenneth Branagh among them.  Who really knows?  Feeling comfortable about the movie’s premise—from an historically plausible sense, off I went this afternoon, on my own (because some people who I’ll refrain from mentioning refused to join me based on the NY Times movie review).   The NYT called the film “a vulgar prank on the English literary tradition, a travesty of British history and a brutal insult to the human imagination.”  I won’t go that far, but I did start muttering “what tosh” not far into the film.

On many levels, the movie is excellent theatre. I expect to see Academy Award nominations for set, costume design, and make-up, most of which was extremely accurate to the period.  The acting was very good—Rhys Ifans stands out as De Vere and erased from my memory (almost, some things are too funny to forget) his tour de force performance in “Notting Hill” as the goofy Welsh roommate.  I enjoyed both Redgraves, Vanessa and daughter Joely Richardson, as Elizabeth I, and I got a kick out of Shakespeare’s cockney accent and slang (which, given he was from Stratford-upon-Avon he would not have had, but details!).  David Thewlis makes an excellent William Cecil.  Jamie Campbell Bower does a creditable job as the young De Vere—much better than his work in the mini-series “Camelot.” But why was the most excellent Shakespearean actor Derek Jacobi given a bit part?  I’ve seen Jacobi as Richard III (front row seat, she bragged) and having him introduce the film and disappear until the end was a giant tease.

Then there’s the plot—ah, there’s the rub.  Let me first say something nice.  What writer Christopher Orloff did well, and which I have not seen in other historical films, was to set up the Cecils pere et fils (William, Lord Burghley and Robert) as the villains of the piece, pursuing fanatical Puritanism at the expense of arts and culture.  Knowing something of how William Cecil plotted the downfall of Mary, Queen of Scots, I could buy this.  The film also did a nice job of portraying the real animosity that existed between Robert Cecil and the Earls of Essex and Oxford.  Orloff ‘s Cecils are master playwrights, and everyone, even Queen Elizabeth, are merely actors on the stage that is England.

Much of it was historically accurate.  Most of Edward De Vere’s life—including  killing a member of Burghley’s household–was true, as was De Vere’s estrangement from his wife.  Essex’s rebellion was fairly accurate, though the role of the play in his downfall—which was actually Richard II not Richard III—was overstated.

If they’d only sailed closer to historical winds of fact, this would have been a great film, especially for 16th C history aficionados. But, Orloff took some, er, creative license, that had me squirming in my seat through much of the movie.  The Earl of Essex AND the Earl of Southampton were Elizabeth’s children—Southampton her child by the Earl of Oxford, who was ALSO Elizabeth son.  Now, I’m sorry, but I could take one fictionalized bastard of Elizabeth I—many a good historical fiction novel was published about the rumor she had a child.  But three, and one the product of incest? This is where belief is suspended and fantasy fiction takes over. Elizabeth might as well have been a shape-shifter or a werewolf.  I do hate it when facts are flung out the window, because so many people will watch the film and believe Elizabeth did have multiple children and an incestuous relationship.  Hollywood. *Sigh*

I did enjoy the movie, although if it had stuck to its premise and worked a bit harder to be believable, it could have been a great film.  Was De Vere the “real” Shakespeare?  If, after seeing the film, you’re curious to learn more, head to the De Vere Society. But if you think it is bunk, then here are a few NY Times articles (“Hollywood Dishonors the Bard” and  ”Wouldn’t It Be Cool if Shakespeare Wasn’t Shakespeare“) as grist for your mill.  In contrast, the UK’s Guardian review was much kinder.

Not Just the Facts, But Don’t Forget the Facts

Here it is: I like facts—historical facts, more facts and maybe some logical assumptions or reasonable leaps in historical fiction. And that is the litmus test I apply to the medieval and renaissance historical fiction and non-fiction that I read or watch.

This blog will include—at least in part—reviews of what I consider the best historical fiction, or non-fiction, focused on Europe—particularly England, Scotland, Wales and France in the 15th and 16th centuries. Most reviews will be on books, but I’ll include the odd film or TV show that captures my attention.

In fact, my first blog post focuses on a new US TV show called “Legend Quest” where a Scottish symbologist and archaeologist, Ashley Cowie, and his intrepid producer Kinga go off in search of relics. Not just any relic, mind you, but the most sought-after finds in the history of—well—mankind. The Holy Grail, Solomon’s Spear and Ring, Mayan Talking Cross, Stone of Scone, Excalibur and Merlin’s Tomb & Treasure. Oh yes! and the Ark of the Covenant. To say it is ambitious is an understatement. Cowie tackles two relics per show, which gives him 30 mins of screen time to find each item. How could a history lover not watch? (According to Wikipedia the first show got 1.2 million viewers and boosted the SyFy channel’s ratings by 19%.)

I work as an analyst by day, and I must painstakingly make sure I do not make statements without the facts to substantiate them. Cowie does not seem to get too worried about the details. His leaps of logic completely blow my mind.

In one episode he is looking for Solomon’s Ring, supposedly given by the Archangel Michael to King Solomon to defeat a demon. The seal on the ring—the Star of David—is referred to as the “Seal of Solomon.” It disappeared on the King’s death, no one has seen it since.

Cowie does a nice job of explaining the background of the ring, and how Solomon once threw it to the fishes, before it came back to him (inside a fish). He seizes on the fish symbol and sets about looking for it, or the Star of David. At one point—probably the most annoying part of the show—he looks at a sign of two fishes over a doorway and declares, “This must be the place, here’s the symbol of Jesus (fish) and the symbol of Solomon (fish). Two fishes=the ring.” He eventually decides he believes Solomon’s ring is in the Vatican. Do two fishes=a ring? You tell me.

I’m not saying it isn’t good TV – he leaps down caverns, crawls up hills hither and yon, and clearly has an awesome production budget. But he never finds anything. Nothing. It is like opening an old Cracker Jack box, enjoying the whole box only to find there is NO PRIZE at the end. No Stone of Scone. No Holy Grail. No Spear or Ring. No cross, talking or otherwise. If he found at least one artifact, or debunked one myth, I’d be happier.

The show drives me nuts! (But I admit I’ve seen every episode.) If ever a show put two and two together to get six, it is this show. And perhaps I’d like it better if he put a little less razzle dazzle on the history and a little more history in the history! By contrast, I watch a show with the “British Indiana Jones” Tudor Parfitt, who painstakingly (over 2 hours) sought the Ark of the Covenant and although I do not know I can agree with his conclusions (he’ll be gutted, I know), I did think his logic was sound and some of his assumptions were reasonable.

Ashley Cowie, I ken yer laughing all the way t’the bank and I could listen to you talk all day long, but I wish you’d take a deep breath and talk some sense man! Or FIND SOMETHING and stuff my criticism down my throat! Tonight’s the season finale – I’ll be watching, ever hopeful!

What historical leaps of logic or assumptions do you see in books, blogs, or other media?