![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
glitteryvKicking off this year's Fannish 50 with a mini-series in which I compare multiple versions of the same material for funsies, hahah.
First off are three adaptations of Agatha Christie's "Witness for the Prosecution". First published in 1925, this short story is abt a lawyer deciding to represent a man who has been accused of murdering a rich widow. The man's wife decides to testify for the prosecution--which obvs makes things complicated for the lawyer who is trying to keep the dude from getting executed. This isn't my fave Christie short story, so I'll admit that did influenced my feelings abt the movies. Alas.
Witness for the Prosecution (1957) (YouTube)
Sir Wilfrid Robarts (played by Charles Laughton) is a respected barrister who is recovering from a heart attack. He becomes Leonard Vole (played by Tyrone Power)'s lead attorney for his trial. Vole's an American who's accused of murdering an old widow. It so happens that the widow had named him the sole heir of her fortune (which is something that Vole claims he didn't know abt.)
During the course of the investigation and trial, a German woman named Christine (played by Marlene Dietrich) says she's Vole's wife. Everyone's surprised when she ends up being an actual witness for the prosecution. Things are not going well for Vole…
Casting-wise, things are pretty solid for the most part. Marlene Dietrich is ridic good. She plays Christine in a way that leaves viewers unsure as to whether she's lying. This uncertainty extends to the reasons behind her behavior for the entire movie. She's a true mystery and viewers can't help but be enthralled. Laughton's portrayal of Robarts is also enjoyable. He's deffo grumpy and a snob, but there's enough of his humanity coming thru to balance things out.
Even though the majority of the movie takes place in an office and court settings, the cinematography works. Renowned director Billy Wilder co-wrote the script in addition to also directing the movie. This results in a film that keeps viewers engaged.
Do I have any criticisms?
It wasn't until watching this movie that I truly don't care for Tyrone Power as an actor, hahah. I got the sense that he tried to do something that he simply didn't have the range for. Kinda like when I saw him in The Razor's Edge.. IMO, his best role deffo was the one in Nightmare Alley cuz he was able to tap a darker and crueler persona.
I feel the role of Leonard Vole needed someone with a less intense presence. YMMV.
ALSO, there are period-typical sexist and xenophobic bits of dialogue throughout the film that made me Muppet Face at my TV, NGL. The fact that the two main female characters (Christine and Miss Plimsoll (Robarts' nurse, played by Elsa Lanchester) were the ones to take the brunt of those comments irked me a lot.
The last thing that annoyed me was the moments of 1950s British humor. They were somewhat dissonant for me.
Do I recommend it?
I do despite my griping above! It's a middle-of-the-road movie that's worth checking out at least once. The pacing is good, the plot flows along, and the acting is fine. I'm giving it a 2.7 out of 5. Not a movie I'm rarin' to watch anytime soon. You can watch it for free on YT and all of the free movie apps.
Queerness level
Nonexistent. I'd count Marlene Dietrich solely based on her being in the movie, but that would be unfair, LOL.
The 1982 version (YouTube)
This was a made-for-TV movie with Ralph Richardson as Sir Wilfred Robarts, Dame Diana Rigg as Christine, Beau Bridges (!!) as Leonard Vole, and Debora Kerr as Miss Plimsoll (Robarts' nurse).
It's a much more faithful adaptation than the previous movie?
Special tip of the hat for Beau Bridges as Vole. He has the "aw, chucks' persona that's necessary to keep viewers guessing.
Do I have any criticisms?
The camerawork is not that great. I also didn't care for Richardson as the lawyer cuz his prickliness isn't counterbalanced by charm. So he's just cranky old man that you don't feel much sympathy for? Kerr's portrayal of Miss Plimsoll is less peppy than Lanchester's was. I do appreciate that, but I also got the sense that the production team didn't know WHAT to do with her.
I'm on the fence abt Dame Diana Rigg--which is a rare occurrence since she's one of my faves. Her version of Christine follows the model presented by Dietrich. However, it doesn't quite work because Rigg thrives when she's sassier, IMO. I kinda wish that Kerr and Rigg had switched roles, IDK.
Do I recommend it?
Not at all. This one draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagged. I'm giving it a 1.5 out of 5.
Queerness level
Nonexistent. So, there's that.
The 2016 version (Hoopla)
Although I watched this as a 2-hr movie, it had originally aired as a 2-part series on BBC.
This movies has exceptionally good sound design. I also liked Kim Cattrall as Mrs. French (the widow). It's a honest portrayal of a lonely woman seeking connection and giving into her desires. Billy Howle was swarmy yet charismatic as Leonard Vole. It was easy to see why Mrs. French was so gaga over him.
This version stands out fortwo three reasons:
1. The ending goes back to the original version of Christie's short story (NB: Christie herself had changed the ending for the 1953 play version and that's the ending that the 1957 and 1982 movies used.) In addition, a few things are shifted around to make this movie stand out even more when compared to the other two films.
2. There are some mild sex scenes (including cunnilingus) here and there. Also, a few of the character pepper their dialogue with curse words.
3. Instead of focusing solely on the legal suspense aspect, this version expands the worldbuilding. Frex,the plot shows a lot fo what the main characters' lives were like before the murder happens. I'm not sure how well that worked, but there we are.
One of the big changes is Toby Jones' John Mayhew (the lawyer defending Vole). Mayhew, in a reversal of the lawyer role from the other two versions, isn't respected nor liked by many ppl. He's also v. sick (an explanation is given in the movie), so viewers might get the impression that he could potentially die at any moment.
Do I have any criticism??
The pacing is torturously slow. Like HELLA SLOW.
Mayhew's home life was uber-depressing. Although I'm glad that the movie eventually reveals why things are the way are between Mayhew and his wife, having to sit thru v. uncomfortable moments felt like wasted time.
I'm gonna acknowledge that I detest Andrea Risenborough, but I tried to get over my random dislike of her. Thing is, Marlene Dietrich's version of Christine | Romaine was alluring. It was v. easy to see why Vole fell for her. Rigg wasn't campy enough (IMO), but there was enough to make viewers go "hmm, I might like her?". However, Risenborough played the character's chill vibe turned so low she was comatose. So she ends with the charisma of a wet sock. Just as unpleasant and unwanted.
Her version of Vole's wife is supposed to be a sweet and gentle soul who's gone thru the horrors of WWI. She's also supposed to be dreamy (especially how Mayhew sees her), but she came across as someone who was heavily sedated 80% of the day. V. drab and disconnected from the chaos all around her.
I was so EMBARRASSED to see Mayhew's weird crush on her. OTOH, everyone's a HOT MESS IN THIS MOVIE (and not in a fun way.)
Finally, due to the movie being set shortly after the end of WWI, the production team tries to do a visual interpretation of that. I'd say abt 90% of the movie has a hazy, ochre fog that never goes away? I hated that aspect of the cinematography.
Do I recommend it?
Nope. I had a hard time with this version due to everything I pointed out in the criticisms. It had a good if
SUPER BITTERSWEET
ending. I'm giving it a 1 out of 5. FTR, the rating is held up by the cat, some of the one liners, and Kim Cattrall.
I do have to give a v. strong Content Warning for animal harm.
The scene focuses on the dead cat floating in the water. A short time later, a detective is shown holding the dead cat like it's a doll. I could tell that it was a fake cat, but it was still v. unnerving.
Queerness level
Medium. There is BUT it's also presented thru the "queer people are sick individuals". There's blatant homophobia at some points in the 2nd half. I don't recommend watching this cuz of the queer presence.
First off are three adaptations of Agatha Christie's "Witness for the Prosecution". First published in 1925, this short story is abt a lawyer deciding to represent a man who has been accused of murdering a rich widow. The man's wife decides to testify for the prosecution--which obvs makes things complicated for the lawyer who is trying to keep the dude from getting executed. This isn't my fave Christie short story, so I'll admit that did influenced my feelings abt the movies. Alas.
Witness for the Prosecution (1957) (YouTube)
Sir Wilfrid Robarts (played by Charles Laughton) is a respected barrister who is recovering from a heart attack. He becomes Leonard Vole (played by Tyrone Power)'s lead attorney for his trial. Vole's an American who's accused of murdering an old widow. It so happens that the widow had named him the sole heir of her fortune (which is something that Vole claims he didn't know abt.)
During the course of the investigation and trial, a German woman named Christine (played by Marlene Dietrich) says she's Vole's wife. Everyone's surprised when she ends up being an actual witness for the prosecution. Things are not going well for Vole…
Casting-wise, things are pretty solid for the most part. Marlene Dietrich is ridic good. She plays Christine in a way that leaves viewers unsure as to whether she's lying. This uncertainty extends to the reasons behind her behavior for the entire movie. She's a true mystery and viewers can't help but be enthralled. Laughton's portrayal of Robarts is also enjoyable. He's deffo grumpy and a snob, but there's enough of his humanity coming thru to balance things out.
Even though the majority of the movie takes place in an office and court settings, the cinematography works. Renowned director Billy Wilder co-wrote the script in addition to also directing the movie. This results in a film that keeps viewers engaged.
Do I have any criticisms?
It wasn't until watching this movie that I truly don't care for Tyrone Power as an actor, hahah. I got the sense that he tried to do something that he simply didn't have the range for. Kinda like when I saw him in The Razor's Edge.. IMO, his best role deffo was the one in Nightmare Alley cuz he was able to tap a darker and crueler persona.
I feel the role of Leonard Vole needed someone with a less intense presence. YMMV.
ALSO, there are period-typical sexist and xenophobic bits of dialogue throughout the film that made me Muppet Face at my TV, NGL. The fact that the two main female characters (Christine and Miss Plimsoll (Robarts' nurse, played by Elsa Lanchester) were the ones to take the brunt of those comments irked me a lot.
The last thing that annoyed me was the moments of 1950s British humor. They were somewhat dissonant for me.
Do I recommend it?
I do despite my griping above! It's a middle-of-the-road movie that's worth checking out at least once. The pacing is good, the plot flows along, and the acting is fine. I'm giving it a 2.7 out of 5. Not a movie I'm rarin' to watch anytime soon. You can watch it for free on YT and all of the free movie apps.
Queerness level
Nonexistent. I'd count Marlene Dietrich solely based on her being in the movie, but that would be unfair, LOL.
The 1982 version (YouTube)
This was a made-for-TV movie with Ralph Richardson as Sir Wilfred Robarts, Dame Diana Rigg as Christine, Beau Bridges (!!) as Leonard Vole, and Debora Kerr as Miss Plimsoll (Robarts' nurse).
It's a much more faithful adaptation than the previous movie?
Special tip of the hat for Beau Bridges as Vole. He has the "aw, chucks' persona that's necessary to keep viewers guessing.
Do I have any criticisms?
The camerawork is not that great. I also didn't care for Richardson as the lawyer cuz his prickliness isn't counterbalanced by charm. So he's just cranky old man that you don't feel much sympathy for? Kerr's portrayal of Miss Plimsoll is less peppy than Lanchester's was. I do appreciate that, but I also got the sense that the production team didn't know WHAT to do with her.
I'm on the fence abt Dame Diana Rigg--which is a rare occurrence since she's one of my faves. Her version of Christine follows the model presented by Dietrich. However, it doesn't quite work because Rigg thrives when she's sassier, IMO. I kinda wish that Kerr and Rigg had switched roles, IDK.
Do I recommend it?
Not at all. This one draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagged. I'm giving it a 1.5 out of 5.
Queerness level
Nonexistent. So, there's that.
The 2016 version (Hoopla)
Although I watched this as a 2-hr movie, it had originally aired as a 2-part series on BBC.
This movies has exceptionally good sound design. I also liked Kim Cattrall as Mrs. French (the widow). It's a honest portrayal of a lonely woman seeking connection and giving into her desires. Billy Howle was swarmy yet charismatic as Leonard Vole. It was easy to see why Mrs. French was so gaga over him.
This version stands out for
1. The ending goes back to the original version of Christie's short story (NB: Christie herself had changed the ending for the 1953 play version and that's the ending that the 1957 and 1982 movies used.) In addition, a few things are shifted around to make this movie stand out even more when compared to the other two films.
2. There are some mild sex scenes (including cunnilingus) here and there. Also, a few of the character pepper their dialogue with curse words.
3. Instead of focusing solely on the legal suspense aspect, this version expands the worldbuilding. Frex,the plot shows a lot fo what the main characters' lives were like before the murder happens. I'm not sure how well that worked, but there we are.
One of the big changes is Toby Jones' John Mayhew (the lawyer defending Vole). Mayhew, in a reversal of the lawyer role from the other two versions, isn't respected nor liked by many ppl. He's also v. sick (an explanation is given in the movie), so viewers might get the impression that he could potentially die at any moment.
Do I have any criticism??
The pacing is torturously slow. Like HELLA SLOW.
Mayhew's home life was uber-depressing. Although I'm glad that the movie eventually reveals why things are the way are between Mayhew and his wife, having to sit thru v. uncomfortable moments felt like wasted time.
I'm gonna acknowledge that I detest Andrea Risenborough, but I tried to get over my random dislike of her. Thing is, Marlene Dietrich's version of Christine | Romaine was alluring. It was v. easy to see why Vole fell for her. Rigg wasn't campy enough (IMO), but there was enough to make viewers go "hmm, I might like her?". However, Risenborough played the character's chill vibe turned so low she was comatose. So she ends with the charisma of a wet sock. Just as unpleasant and unwanted.
Her version of Vole's wife is supposed to be a sweet and gentle soul who's gone thru the horrors of WWI. She's also supposed to be dreamy (especially how Mayhew sees her), but she came across as someone who was heavily sedated 80% of the day. V. drab and disconnected from the chaos all around her.
I was so EMBARRASSED to see Mayhew's weird crush on her. OTOH, everyone's a HOT MESS IN THIS MOVIE (and not in a fun way.)
Finally, due to the movie being set shortly after the end of WWI, the production team tries to do a visual interpretation of that. I'd say abt 90% of the movie has a hazy, ochre fog that never goes away? I hated that aspect of the cinematography.
Do I recommend it?
Nope. I had a hard time with this version due to everything I pointed out in the criticisms. It had a good if
SPOILER
SUPER BITTERSWEET
I do have to give a v. strong Content Warning for animal harm.
SPOILER ABT THE CAT
Toward the end of the 2nd part, Mayhew finds the cat in one of the fountains of the house. It's implied that Mrs. French's maid killed it in order to hide evidence. This is false as SOMEONE ELSE killed the cat.The scene focuses on the dead cat floating in the water. A short time later, a detective is shown holding the dead cat like it's a doll. I could tell that it was a fake cat, but it was still v. unnerving.
Queerness level
Medium. There is BUT it's also presented thru the "queer people are sick individuals". There's blatant homophobia at some points in the 2nd half. I don't recommend watching this cuz of the queer presence.
no subject
Date: 2025-01-13 03:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-01-13 03:22 pm (UTC)And, yeah, I don't recall seeing young!Beau Bridges in a lot of movies, so I did a true double take when he came onscreen.