Red Dwarf S01E06 Me² // Series 1 (1988) Review Part 6

The following programme is brought to you in stereo.

Context for those unfamiliar with Red Dwarf (Spoilers for Episode 1 of the show)

Dave Lister, played by Craig Charles, is the last man alive. He’s living in the mining ship “Red Dwarf” with a hologram of his dead roommate, Rimmer, played by Chris Barrie; a member of a species of evolved cats, “The Cat”, played by Danny John-Jules; and a computer on the ship, Holly, played by Norman Lovett. Lister crushes on a deceased member of the crew, Kristine Kochanski, played by Clare Grogan. Kristine and Rimmer died due to a radiation leak that killed everyone on “Red Dwarf”, except for Lister and non-humans.

The Series 1 finale to Red Dwarf ends on a good note. “Me²” gives us some delicious character development and laughs. We see more of Rimmer’s insecurities. Rimmer blames all his problems on Lister, even calling it a scientific fact. We learn he has self-congratulatory stickers about himself. As presumably intended, this is not something most people would have. The plot of the episode consists of there being two Rimmers on board, which creates conflict. The Rimmers act a bit differently from each other, with the new one being more annoying. Why? While the writer’s intentions are unknown, this could show Lister’s positive impact on Rimmer, making him more relaxed and less irritating. Rimmer doesn’t seem as full of himself and not *as* difficult. Like being “one of the guys”, he discusses that he “Gave one” to a girl.

“Me²” is like a remake of the previous episode, “Confidence and Paranoia”. Rimmer is paranoia and Lister’s his confidence. Rimmer is stressed and uncomfortable. Rimmer’s feelings are at one point hurt by his copy. Lister is more about moving above those human insecurities and cheering yourself up. The Cat is once again not very relevant to the plot. He is still a good way to inject something lighter in the plot. The Cat gets a good moment where he’s trying to not be seen. He seems to think he could be confused for someone else. This is another showcase of his unintelligence.

This episode works well due to a small mystery and plenty of good jokes which blend seamlessly to character development and good dramatic scenes. Lots of comedies can’t handle the weight of a dramatic moment. Despite the episode’s good dialogue and acting, we get a scene that can be found in tons of stuff. Lister is talking to himself about all the things he can now that Rimmer left their shared room. This is pretty sad, badly acted, and written. Realistically, he would just think these things, but that couldn’t be portrayed to the audience in that way. Lister is out of character, talking to himself with an awkward and idiotic tone. It makes him seem more bizarre than he is. This segment should’ve been cut.

SPOILERS

Lister watches a bit of security footage of Rimmer talking to Captain Hollister about improperly fixing a drive plate. Rimmer says he takes full responsibility for what he did. There’s a radiation leak which causes everyone to be blown across the room and die. In Episode 1, we see the ashes of everyone and they’re clearly located in a different place to where they ended up. A big plot point of the episode comes when Rimmer gives his final words, “Gazpacho soup”. Lister wonders what that means. While a difference in Rimmer’s character might be missed by someone watching the series, we see the difference much clearer when the fresh Rimmer and the Rimmer we’re following this series interact and argue. It’s great that this is the last episode of Series 1, as this episode works best as a finale. This is what the series has been leading to with Rimmer. This episode has a good mystery of what the soup means and it has good character moments for Lister and Rimmer. When the Rimmers’ arguing is just too much for everyone, it’s decided that one should be turned off. When a game of chance results in the series’ Rimmer losing, he accepts his fate. He debatably accepted his fate before as he wasn’t making an effort to save himself from the radiation leak.

For seemingly no reason, the new Rimmer walks off before the other Rimmer can have his last words. It’s also strange that The Cat is present. He never seemed to care about what Lister and Rimmer were up to before. Lister asks Rimmer what “Gazpacho soup” means. Rimmer explains that he was so happy to be invited to sit with Captain Hollister for dinner. Rimmer ordered gazpacho soup and upon being given a cold dish, he thought it was an oversight and asked it to be heated up. Some people started laughing and he thought they were laughing at the oversight, but they were actually laughing at him as gazpacho soup is intended to be served cold. The embarrassment from that moment haunted Rimmer and he blamed many of his misfortunes on people looking at him as lesser for making such a mistake. Rimmer blaming other things for his problems exemplifies in his passionate speech about the soup. This shows off the quality of his character’s writing and performance. You can feel for him, even though he’s being silly. Everyone can sometimes put too much stock in little nothings that happen. Chris Barrie does a great job with that monologue, giving passion to it.

When it’s time to turn Rimmer off, Lister reveals he turned off the other just as he left. That twist makes sense as it matches with Lister’s character and creates good drama with a comedic payoff. It would’ve been nice if Lister gave Rimmer a reason to leave, but that’s not a big deal. The season ends with a good heart to heart between Rimmer and Lister. Lister promises not to mention the soup or Rimmer letting his heart out to him again. He doesn’t technically break that, but he does respond to a comment with “Souper”. Roll credits! It would’ve been funny if Rimmer claimed that he had said the soup story so Lister could bother the second Rimmer about it, but this moment is good as well.

SERIES 1 OVERVIEW

This series makes Lister feel isolated from everything. We see few people and sets. His loneliness is contrasted by some flashback scenes where he’s with friends. The Cat on the other hand, appears to be fine with being alone. He doesn’t mind the lack of his race’s presence in his life. Rimmer’s loneliness isn’t touched upon. Just like Lister’s separation from his friends, Rimmer is also separated from what he wants. He wants to be the ship’s captain, but proceeds to make a lot of mistakes. The most overt character quality is that both Lister and Rimmer are usually mean to each other. Lister can be nice due to him wanting to while Rimmer only is for personal gain. Exceptions exist, such as when Rimmer tried to persuade The Cat to help a sick Lister. Rimmer gets tons of character development, becoming comfortable with his environment more. It wouldn’t have been very hard to cut The Cat from the show and have it be mostly the same, but many, including me, simply like The Cat. Another desire of Rimmer’s is his lack of a body and desire to have one. That’s a nice subtle thing to influence and drive him. It makes sense that someone that thinks like a human can be kept going by those little things.

Both Lister and The Cat go through less character development than Rimmer. It’d be nice to see the two bond over the fact that they’re both living beings surrounded by technology and no others of their race. If they are going to get focus, it’s not related to each other. Lister doesn’t like The Cat because he’s another person, it’s because his dream was to live his life with Kristine and his cat. His cat is dead, so The Cat is a substitute. The lack of individuality to The Cat is emphasized by his character not being named. It seems likely that the character has a name, just that no one cares about using it. There’s something that can be said about how so many things, like a toilet and a toaster, are conscious things created to serve humans and they’re just a normal part of life. They could fill a lack of human interaction for Lister. These should’ve been cut as they don’t add anything to the narrative, despite them being pretty funny. A personal favorite is Talkie Toaster. The appliance’s inclusion could arguably be called a plothole. Lister’s optimism is shown in his unflinching desire to return to Earth, despite it probably not being like how he wants it. He tries not to let the reality of his situation, like annoying toasters, get in his way of happiness.

The main frustrations from this series are plotholes and a lack of character moments. Holly doesn’t appear as much as I remembered, with him also being close to superfluous. Lister’s love for Kristine didn’t go anywhere. While that didn’t need to be resolved, something should’ve happened in these six episodes to make it feel necessary and worth having. This plot point would make more sense being introduced in a later season, which would cover some ground. Episode 2 features Lister planning on returning to stasis, which will preserve his body for the millions of years it’ll take for the ship to go back to Earth, but that whole plot point was dropped. Why not give a reason for him not returning to stasis? It’s also strange that Captain Hollister entrusted Rimmer to fix the drive plate, despite him being incompetent at simpler things. There’s also some technical errors, but not a lot. Rimmer’s haircut changes between scenes in one episode with no explanation.

While Series 1 is flawed in many regards, it tells a compelling story with good characters and drama. Numerous British shows struggle to take all those threads and pull them together. This is no exception. It’s easy to overlook those problems and enjoy the episodes regardless. Some aspects can be very satisfying, but not always thought out. The best episodes are “Balance of Power”, “Waiting for God”, and “Me²”. The weakest is the pilot, “The End”.

Dark Victory (1939) Review

A frame from the film

This film seems like it’d be polarizing. It’s a bit darker than a lot of the films from this time period, but not exceptionally. If someone begging to feel happy had to pick between this and All Quiet on the Western Front, I’d recommend Dark Victory. It’s generally considered one of the best films to feature the great Bette Davis. Her excellent acting is present here. If you need your movie to be livelier, she’s great at that. Davis is so good at giving big, loud performances, but without overacting. She doesn’t seem like a cartoon character and instead seems like she’s alive. This film’s story is an adventure! And she’s living it! You really care about her and it’s so emotional watching the downer moments, because Bette’s so good at getting you to care about the plot and the characters. Her expressive face when something bad happens is so impactful. Also impactful is her mixed-emotioned face at the end.

A common criticism I give to films is the use of music when there really shouldn’t be. Tender, quiet, sorrow moments don’t often need music. They work much better when you let the emotions hit you. The music in this film is sometimes overly theatrical. They can really weaken the impact that should be carried only by the dialogue and the acting. One of the best moments of the film is when one character lights another’s cigarette with deafening silence and we learn something of the character due to information established earlier. That cold nothingness is more effective than any score. Light a cigarette, that’s it.

Many of the performances are moderate. While Davis as Judy is very good, her friend Ann is overacted a bit. Some of the other actors, like Henry Travers (who appeared in It’s a Wonderful Life) and Ronald Reagan (who was later the president), are easy to forget. A drama like this needs brilliant, top tier actors to get you as invested as possible. Some of the dialogue is overly theatrical in nature. The worst lines are some of Davis’. A particular one is along the lines of, “I hate you because X, I hate you because Y!” This doesn’t seem to come off like how a real person would act in this situation. Basically all the problems go away for the ending. The ending is so poignant and well done. It seems like the film was made just for it. The black and white film and dim cinematography paint the tone very well. It’s not the end, but a new beginning.

SPOILERS

Judy learns that she needs to have surgery for a brain tumor. There’s an awkward scene where she and Ann refuse to allow it, then in the next scene, she’s about to do it. A doctor, Dr. Steele, realizes the tumor can’t be removed and Judy has less than a year to live. Ann and Judy later learn this at different times. A lot of the drama comes from when and how and if they’ll learn this morbid info. Despite the film never mentioning a cure on the way, your mind is yelling “There’s got to be a cure!”. After the surgery, someone says to Judy, “And may you never be ill again,” which has a dark double meaning. The film gets meatier when after Steele tried to hide the illness from the starved for life Judy, she learns the truth. There’s some great scenes of her trying to accept this. This film is also largely a romance between Steele and Judy. If I was told this beforehand, I’d think it’s a bad idea, but the film plays the romance well. All of the film boils down to near the ending, where the two are simply living the best life they can while she can. It’s rewarding to see the two of them not worrying and just loving each other.

The ending is quite good. Judy realizes she’s going to die in a few hours and her husband is going to go to some event. Judy pretends to be fine and gets him going, as she doesn’t want him to miss it. She has Ann leave, who runs away, almost in tears, and she lies in her bed. The film ends with her lying there. This ending works well because of its simplicity. She’s just going along and making some dues. There’s no big overly theatrical performance. This film is constantly confronting the audience with dying and it boils over here when she’s about to die. This film can depress as it makes you think about your own death. You can sometimes almost forget you will die, but this movie subtly tells you otherwise. It makes you think about if and how you may have wasted your life so far and how much is left. This movie is so frank with that. You can compare yourself to Judy. The scenes earlier in the film, when Steele was hiding Judy’s secret, are mirrored as she’s hiding this from him at the end. You also think of the beginning of the film, where Judy was carefree and full of life. She often talked about the future. Now, she’s accepted death. It would’ve been nice to have more scenes of her accepting death earlier on and less quibbling between her and Steele, but the problems aren’t too bad.

OVERVIEW

Dark Victory is sometimes too over the top and almost silly, but the quiet and subtle moments are very effective. While many might know of Bette Davis as a loud actress, she carries subtlety here. The ending demonstrates just how good she is. This film can get bogged down in details and other unnecessary elements, but Davis pushes this movie above what it easily could’ve been and makes these problems more forgivable.

The Big Chance (1957) Review

Our protagonist’s great face in the very beginning of the film

The Big Chance is a quick, bitey little drama. Many films like it would run for at least ninety minutes, but this one is just fifty-eight. The pacing is fast, but not so fast to lose you or confuse over the details. There’s quite a lot of development for the characters. Plenty of ninety minute tales seem to struggle to fit in necessary elements like character development. While not realized in the moment, our protagonist was picking up things from this adventure and changing as a person. William Russell, who plays the protagonist William Anderson, shows a lot. He acts like a real person, which gives this film class and life. The film is carried so much by the protagonist, who thankfully isn’t a pretty face that couldn’t give a performance to save their life. Some of the other actors are a little more one note. Adrienne Corri as Diana Maxwell is good as well. While she doesn’t display the spectrum of emotions, she works as what she’s supposed to be. She’s a metaphor for the plot. It seems too good to be true, then you realize it is.

The plot of this film is quite clever. It seamlessly changes directions more than once and it all makes sense. It’s a sort of fantasy for the protagonist. There’s a noir-like soundtrack and sharp grit to the cinematography, which gives the film the look of an adventure. It’s an experience to go on. It’s one that a lot of people would like to experience. All this sucks you into this effortlessly engaging and dramatic story. William Anderson is such an endearing protagonist. He’s living a fantasy because that’s what he wants to do. You’re supposed to put yourself in his shoes and go on the ride. We get in his head more literally in the beginning. Roughly the first ten minutes consist of his narration. Typically, narrations can be a detriment to films. We’re being told what we should be seeing. The narration works here because it’s basically just the protagonist’s thoughts. We see him doing stuff as the narration plays. There’s a parallel to him playing along as a passive member of society, but we hear what he’s thinking, he dreams of more. However, some bits of the narration should’ve been cut as it’s just telling us what we should see. It’s especially infuriating when we see something happen and the narration basically says, “That thing you just saw, this is what happened.”

The music playing in the beginning sounds like royalty free music one might download from a site. It’s not too bad though and it can put you in the mundane life of our protagonist. It’s as if the music is the soundtrack that plays in William’s head as he thinks of his dreams and aspirations. As parts of the film get tense, a drum plays. That drum hit is so subtle and you can kind of forget it, but it becomes incredibly unnerving as it mirrors the heartbeat and the stress. It’s so effective at making you feel William’s psyche.

The main problem with the film are some contrivances or unnecessary elements. A big part of the plot starts when one character decides to drive through the woods recklessly. Why would they do that? Stay on the road! The contrivances aren’t too frequent or too annoying. As I’ve seen in a lot of films recently, there’s a little fight scene that is completely pointless. Why do movies just want to have people fighting for no reason? This film can be respected for keeping things quick, but I can’t help but wonder about the hypothetical ninety-minute version. I’m not saying it’d be better, just that I’d be really curious to see it.

SPOILERS

Murphy’s law is in effect for William. Basically everything that can go wrong does. He steals some money from work and plans to take a flight to Panama. After going through a lot of trouble getting the money through customs, fog delays the flight, so it was all for nothing. William meets a woman named Diana. She figures out that he’s doing something illegal and gets him to tell her the whole truth. The two take a liking to each other, both want to go to Panama and run away from their lives. After she crashes their car, they break into a house for the night. Diana seems like the perfect adventuress in comparison to William’s less interesting wife. They share a passionate kiss, which shows William loving his “new life”. It was frustrating seeing that they left the car door open. When they return to the car, we get a funny line. Diana says, “It’s gone, my bag!” William says, “I left my gloves. They’re gone too.”

In an attempt to get the bag back, William talks to several people nearby. He leaves his big with Diana. Here, he gets in a fight with someone for no reason and falls right next to a spinning saw. This scene works as a metaphor. The saw parallels the pointless danger William has partaken in the film. Diana puts the money in her bag, the one she didn’t lose, and seemingly tried to drive away without William, but it’s not made clear. This scene emphasizes that once outside of the dark and cloudy night, you see someone for who they really are. Diana is showing her true colors. You don’t know what she’s up to and she’s a little annoying. The morning also represents the sobering light of what William’s doing. This has also made William more agitated. This story has more realism than many others. William progressively becomes more angered and annoyed. Other stories like this often have the handsome protagonist’s spirits high without any problems knocking their attitude down. William is realistic, he’s hung up on a dream and slowly realizes that a good catch ain’t so good. William doesn’t leave her, seemingly because he’s hung up on the Diana he passionately kissed. This is despite him not believing her more innocent reason for taking the money.

Diana continues to irritate, with her wanting to return to her house, saying her husband isn’t home. He was home and our two protagonists learn this when a cop knocks on the door and her husband answers. According to the cop, his wife was in an accident and they want him to go to the hospital. He knows it’s his wife because she had her bag. It’s hard to accept the amazing coincidence that the woman who had the bag happened to be in an accident, which meant Diana got the bag back and her husband ended up leaving the house, so she and William can escape. Also, Diana’s car was parked in front of her house, how did her husband not see it? Diana and William speed to the airport for Panama and upon her husband, Adam, learning the woman isn’t his wife, speeds after them. How did he know where they were and how did he catch up on their huge lead on them? Instead, she could’ve been driving slowly, so it would make more sense for Adam to catch up. In an attempt to lose Adam, Diana accidentally hits Adam, who is injured. The emotional climax hits when Diana refuses to go back to help him, so William leaves Diana’s car to help him, knowing Diana will then drive off.

Later, Diana is in the airport and William comes to tell her he’s not going with her. Earlier, when William went to find Diana’s bag, she wanted to keep his bag of money so he wouldn’t leave her forever. Here, she has his bag. The earlier scene is mirrored as he’s coming back to her, to get it. The scene is short and simple. It effectively concludes William’s adventure. He’s not ready for more excitement. He just wants to go home. In a vacuum, this scene might look like nothing, but its simplicity and composure shows the journey William was on. He lived his adventure and it’s not for him. The idea of the film’s events being shown on the protagonist’s face is hard to do, but William’s calm, but unnerved demeanor portrays that perfectly. He goes back to his wife and returns the money in secret. It’s suggested that he hasn’t given up on his ambitions and might try something again. A real person might act like this.

SPOILERS

The Big Chance is a very good story with compelling characters and developments. Our protagonist is easy to understand and relate to, due to the quality writing and acting. The film’s great at satisfying a desire to watch a quality movie and it doesn’t mess around at only one hour in length.

Her Friend the Bandit (1914) Non-Review

A frame of Chaplin from “Her Friend the Bandit”, “How Motion Pictures Are Made”, or something else

I have not seen Her Friend the Bandit. Why? Because it’s lost. This is the only “true” example of a lost Chaplin film, and then not even. Perhaps us fans are masochistic. We want there to be the one, as it’s something to hold onto. It’s something to look forward to as this is the only one left… kind of. If we are to cast a wider net, we could say there’s seven lost Chaplins. A film with basically no information known about it called How Motion Pictures Are Made (1914) has been alleged to contain Chaplin. A few frames exist which some have said come from this film. If that’s true, this is the first Chaplin film, which makes it extra enticing despite no one caring about its plot. The Baggage Smasher (1914) is also alleged to feature Chaplin with nothing confirming or denying that. The Essanay-Chaplin Revue (1916) and Zepped (1916) utilize outtakes from Chaplin films. Extra infuriating is that Zepped has been found, but it hasn’t been released yet. Hollywood (1923) features a cameo of Chap and A Woman of the Sea (1926) was produced by him. What I want the most are the little bits of footage from the incomplete The Freak (1966-75) which apparently were recorded, then lost. They might have never been.

Those seven films are usually not counted as “real” Chaplin films, but Friend is. So what do we know about it? The synopsis follows: “Charlie plays an elegant bandit with whom Mabel has a flirtation. Mabel hosts a party. Charlie attends as a French count (Count de Beans). Charlie’s uncouth behavior shocks the other party guests. The Keystone Cops eventually are summoned and remove Charlie from the party.” In terms of reviews, one by Moving Picture World called the film “a bit thin”, but also featured “the rough whirling of happenings usually found in farces of this well-marked type”. More positively, The Oregonian said “The Keystone players will offer ‘Her Friend, the Bandit’, one of those rough and ready farces that make everybody laugh.” Most enticingly, The Lexington Herald claimed it’s, “One of the funniest and most hilarious comedies in a decade, with a conglomeration of mirth-provoking scenes.” However, many Keystone films garner reviews this positive, but don’t impress in the now. I dislike most of them. Some have suggested that this is basically the same as the other already similar films where Chaplin and Normand play off each other. It’s not unlikely that Bandit is just like them.

No matter how bad or redundant or pointless this film is, we got to have it. We got to have all of them. Other Chaplin films like Mabel’s Strange Predicament, A Thief Catcher, A Busy Day, and Cruel, Cruel Love were lost for a while and despite none being must watch classics, they are still devoured and treated as Holy Grails, as if they were The Gold Rush, City Lights, Modern Times, and The Great Dictator being found, all because they feature Chaplin, even though he didn’t write or direct them. Admittedly, Wikipedia does list Chaplin as a co-director with Normand, but that could be wrong. Little info can get our ears peeled towards recovery. Some say that film restorer Enrique Bouchard has a copy, but that’s been debunked. Some were ecstatic to hear of its recovery not too long ago, only to learn that it’s His Day Out, which starred a famous Chaplin impersonator, Billy West. Message boards and fan pages discuss the film and if you type it into YouTube, you’ll find videos labelled it, but are in fact something else, usually His Day Out or an actual Chaplin film entitled, Police, which exists and is readily available. It appears that the need for more Chaplin can make our minds try to fill the gap. We gotta discuss it, we gotta label something it. What if in a collection of West films, Her Friend lies. That last bit is a joke, but someone might believe it.

Of course, most tantalizing are the few surviving photos from something. We don’t know where they’re from. Some have said (by proxy) that they aren’t from this film as some say Chaplin isn’t even in Friend. Something that’s been noticed by some is that the film is missing from various older lists of Chaplin films, including one by the man himself and Chaplin not being mentioned in many contemporary reviews. According to Swedish critic Uno Asplund, the only Chaplin films not released in his country are two half-reelers, a propaganda film, Cruel, Cruel Love, and Her Friend. While Cruel’s absence is a mystery, some wonder if this film’s absence is because Chaplin doesn’t show up. At the time, Chaplin was getting big, so why wouldn’t Keystone sell it unless he doesn’t appear? In a 1965 interview, Chaplin recalled playing a Keystone Cop. At the time, no such film was known to feature that until A Thief Catcher was found in 2010. Maybe Her Friend The Bandit also features this. It at least features the Keystone Cops, even if Chaplin isn’t one of them.

OVERVIEW

It’s funny, I don’t want Chaplin in How Motion Pictures Are Made and Her Friend the Bandit as it feels better to have the collection complete, we can give up looking. I also want them found because lost films are so fascinating and more importantly, I want to satisfy the itch. There’s uncertainty if we can’t see it. If we do find it, I want him in it as that’s more Chaplin goodness for the archives. There’s a little more pie than before. In fact, every lost film ever should have Chaplin in it. How about all of my favorite actors alive in the silent era appear. Lon Chaney, Marion Davies, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Bette Davis, Marlene Dietrich, Lucille Ball, Katharine Hepburn, Conrad Veidt, and of course Charlie Chaplin are in all the classics. From London After Midnight to The Head of Janus to 4 Devils to Her Friend the Bandit, they all should have all of them as that’s so satisfying, but they’re only there after we find them! Perhaps we can sleep easy as most of them can’t possibly have appeared in certain films, but that leads the mind to wonder what they are in…

The Fatal Mallet (1914) Review // The Tramp #10

Chaplin in the film

The Fatal Mallet is surprisingly funny. Its humor is very lowbrow, but it manages to hit a funny bone pretty consistently. It’s not perfect. I used to think it was the best Chaplin at Keystone film, while I don’t anymore, it can still be appreciated. The plot is a bunch of guys throw things at each other with the hope of getting with the female lead, Mabel Normand. There’s some surprising elements to this one that give it a little more flavor than normally. For starters, this film gives a little character to Mabel Normand’s character. Despite her films usually being written and directed by her, this one is written by her lover, Mack Sennett. You can look at her face in this film and get a sense of some of her personality. You hear her thoughts, “These dumb men fighting all the time.” She also gets involved in the fighting a little, but that’s still more than being a damsel who is just the prize of men. While she is the prize of men here, that works a little better as the film knows the concept is stupid. The men who are fighting over her are portrayed as foolish and she knows it. It’s almost a satire of that trope.

Something that was particularly annoying was the bad editing. Things like bricks appear and disappear between cuts. These bad editing moments affect the plot. Someone needs to throw something. Instead of walking into crossfire, another thing to throw just appears. Usually the bad editing and continuity doesn’t change the story.

All the actors are decently funny. Mack Swain and Mack Sennett play guys that fight Charlie Chaplin’s The Tramp for Mabel. They give a little flavor with some fun moments of overacting. A favorite is when Sennett is fearful and tries to hide. As is typical, Chaplin is the best part of the movie. He so effortlessly does little actions and moments which get big laughs. He has that eye-catching walk with his cane. At one point, he hits a swing while he’s on the ground and it hits his face. His reaction is amusing. It’s also funny to think that he didn’t know that would happen. The Tramp woos Mabel by doing a little trick with his hat to instantly give him more personality. The Tramp apparently knows these little gestures to appeal to a lady. He also gets some very funny falls, which are perfectly small or exaggerated to match the tone.

The more sophisticated Tramp seen in a few films, which regressed back to bothering people in Caught in the Rain, sadly doesn’t return. The Tramp is hitting guys with stuff for a small amount of attention from a girl. There might be a little to warrant it. In the beginning, The Tramp hits Sennett, but It’s implied that Sennett took Mabel from The Tramp. The Tramp pulls her away and she doesn’t seem to mind being taken by The Tramp.

SPOILERS

When The Tramp is kicked by Sennett, he feels the need to retaliate for being kicked. A more matured or kinder person would let it go. He thinks Mabel kicked him, so he kicks her. We get a little more of Mabel’s character as she doesn’t seem to mind being kicked. That was a funny twist on the norm where the lady is upset. Whenever Mabel is taken from The Tramp, he hits them or something along those lines, which make him look idiotic to Mabel and less attractive. Despite The Tramp not seeing how him fighting is hurting him, we do see some intelligence. He teams up with Sennett to fight Swain. He’ll get over something to defeat a common enemy. Them appearing to have forgotten their own quibbles was also amusing. I had a big laugh when after they hit Swain with a mallet, Mabel turned her head to see the two tip their hats at her.

There’s some more sophistication to the plot than most of these films with fights. We get a twist near the end. The Tramp turns on Sennett, by hitting him with a mallet after Swain is out of the way. This shows him as more than a one-dimensional guy that wants to fight everyone when he’s upset. Him upset and hitting people shows a lack of control over his emotions, but here he seems to have gotten over them. The Tramp has consistently had the goal of Mabel. He apparently was with her from the beginning and it’s satisfying to see them together again as the film has come full circle. Mabel shows some intelligence. She hasn’t forgotten the film’s events and rejects The Tramp, presumably for his behavior. These moments show these characters as more than one note. Annoyingly, Sennett ultimately gets with Mabel. It would’ve been much better if none of them got with her. Was Sennett the protagonist? This ending suggests that. There’s nothing that would constitute this. I guess we were supposed to be rooting for Sennett from the beginning.

OVERVIEW

It is upsetting that The Tramp is once again bothering people and not being the “kind soul”, but we at least get a fun story out of it. There’s also no reason this can’t be set before the start of the character development. The Fatal Mallet isn’t something one has to watch, but it won’t give the impression it wasted your time.

A Busy Day (1914) Review

Chaplin in the film

When I watched this film in 2018, I gave it a one sentence review. It was, “Me watching Chaplin at Keystone films: “Can I please have some more garbage?”” In fact, I considered A Busy Day to be the worst Chaplin at Keystone movie. Now, I was pleasantly surprised. It’s actually much better than that incredibly low bar. This film is a lot like Twenty Minutes of Love, in the sense that it’s not a very intelligent or thought-provoking script, but it’s funny. A Busy Day is smart as it’s only six minutes long. There’s only about six minutes of quality humor, so they do it and then it’s over. There’s no wasting your time. So what if it’s all really dumb?

Charlie Chaplin plays the wife of a guy played by Mack Swain. Chaplin is very funny. His character overreacts to everything, she’s so self entitled. You learn a lot about the character from very little, just from how she reacts to situations. One of the most amusing gags of the film comes when Charlie pretends to be nice to someone so she can hit them. This film is a better version of Kid Auto Races at Venice, both films feature Chaplin’s character walking in front of a camera when someone’s trying to film. In Kid that lasted most of the runtime, in this one it’s about a minute. It makes more sense here. The protagonist is established as someone that is inconsiderate. She has a smile and pose to her as she looks at the camera, as if she’s not paying attention to why a camera is there. She’s absorbed in her own world.

The other actors are forgettable. It’s easy to forget that Swain is even there as he is so nothing here. There’s another woman that Mack talks to and we learn nothing about her. You almost miss that she’s there. It would’ve been nice to get a scene of her looking really pretty or appealing. She’s little more than an extra. To a degree, the reason we aren’t getting the others is because Chaplin is acting his butt off, giving the film his all.  Seeing as the point of this film is to have quick laughs, Chaplin satisfies that itch. The plot is nothing compelling or interesting. A woman gets mad in public, antics ensue. A lesser film would try to make this much longer. Mabel at the Wheel is somewhat like this film, but it’s two-reels long instead of half-a-reel.

SPOILERS

It’s hilarious to see how much Charlie can overreact to simple things. She often hits and kicks people. While this happens in numerous Keystone films, it’s much funnier here as this is a small woman as opposed to a big guy. A favorite moment is when she hits her husband with an umbrella. Another is when multiple men try and fail to restrain her. The concept of multiple people failing to control this infuriated, small woman is hilarious. Chaplin acts consistently. This is a very vibrant and loud character. She can never be quiet or calm. The best part of the film is at the very end. Charlie is knocked off a dock and does a double backflip into the water. That moment was very surprising and impressive. We also saw Chaplin’s unexpected agility in Caught in a Cabaret.

OVERVIEW

While A Busy Day isn’t sophisticated or carrying a deep message of any kind, director, writer, and producer Mack Sennett delivers a quick burst of comedy that amuses and delights quite a lot, helped to no end by Charlie Chaplin.

Lost Soul: The Doomed Journey of Richard Stanley’s Island of Dr. Moreau (2014) Review

Marlon Brando’s brain

This documentary accomplishes something quite simple and easy but often not reached. If you’re making a derivative work, like a parody or documentary, it should stand on its own. One shouldn’t have to be familiar with the original. Lost Soul: The Doomed Journey of Richard Stanley’s Island of Dr. Moreau succeeds at that. I have never seen The Island of Dr. Moreau, but this documentary is fun and engaging on its own. This story has twists and turns that almost seem like they’re from a movie. For lack of a better term, our protagonist is Richard Stanley, a visionary director that wants to make a good film. The shooting of this flick is one of those legendary stories of how everything comically went wrong.

Everyone interviewed is very interesting to listen to, especially Stanley himself, who is clearly such a weird character that you want to learn more about. I’m now interested in watching the films he did direct, namely his most recent one released after this documentary, Color Out of Space. Also fascinating is Marlon Brando, who added a lot to the film. Brando didn’t respect films or his job and he’s considered one of the greatest actors of all time. Basically everyone he’s worked with since he became famous tolerated his attempts to sabotage films he worked on. This film was tampered by Brando’s absurd ideas. Some of the people there, namely bit actors, appeared to appreciate Brando’s weirdness. Him and Val Kilmer are discussed often here. Both disliked this movie and Kilmer especially wanted to bother people. Amusingly, Kilmer was not interviewed for this documentary, suggesting no one wanted to deal with him or he didn’t want to deal with them. Unfortunately, Kilmer is focused on relatively little. It would’ve been nice to get more of the mean things he was doing as this aspect of him is often referenced without examples.

This film almost has a plot. We start out with some questions raised about Stanley and they are more or less satisfied at the end. It wasn’t until the end of the film that I realized that there was this engaging story about this person, who he is and what he’s about. There’s some mysteries and developing plot elements that I want to know how they’re resolved. For most of the film, that wasn’t conscious, it was something that lingered in the back of my mind and the film played like a conventional documentary. This hidden narrative is surprisingly compelling. Stanley goes on a bit of an arc.

SPOILERS

One reason why it’s hard to call Stanley the protagonist is because he’s fired during filming, with him having gone missing. 2014 Stanley also doesn’t appear as he wasn’t around in this part of the story. It seemed like the parts of development with Stanley were discussed as thoroughly as possible while the parts without him were quicker, as if to suggest the filmmakers weren’t interested in that as much. The studio apparently wanted Stanley out of the project from square one, but after creating a friendship with Brando, Brando refused to do the film unless Stanley was in it. After filming starts and Stanley is problematic, he’s fired. His firing was before Brando had to arrive for filming. Brando’s threat is never mentioned again. It would’ve been nice to see how he responded. Also, while Stanley had a strict vision for what he wanted the film to be, Brando wanted to change as much as possible to a bunch of seemingly random nonsense. It would’ve been nice to see how Stanley would’ve reacted to this.

It’s also fascinating to see that most of those involved were taking this film seriously, but progressively they stopped. When Marlon arrived, him not caring and changing things made everyone stop caring. Everyone expected Brando or Kilmer to do something weird. It was amusing that a lot of the bit extras were partying and just waiting for it all to be over. It was very surprising when suddenly, Stanley was found. Something that sounds like it’d be from a movie happens; Stanley puts on a costume that matches up with other extras and appears in the film in that minor role. That’s not only hilarious, but it paints a slightly tragic connection of this artist with a vision reduced to a bit player in this ridiculous film considered one of the all time worst.

OVERVIEW

This film has fascinated me in Richard Stanley. I now really want the version that he would’ve made with creative control. At least we have his few other films.

The Vampire Lovers (1970) Review

The poster that is way more interesting than the film itself and doesn’t present an event from the film.

The Vampire Lovers is a film by Hammer Films. Being Hammer entails some positives and negatives. Their films can thrill. They have blood, breasts, violence, anything that can satisfy the cheap thrills people want. The Vampire Lovers delivers that. Someone who wants to turn off some brains and see some very softcore sex scenes can enjoy this film for that. Director Roy Ward Baker turns out a decent looking film with nice technicolor, but no soul. The film screams “commercial product”. The film looks alright. The acting is (mostly) alright. The dialogue is alright. There’s not much that’s completely terrible, but nothing clever or interesting, other than the cheap thrills. A dynamic looking film can encapsulate an audience. Dramatic angles and cinematography can make the film feel three-dimensional.

The best part of the whole thing is Peter Cushing, who plays “The General”. He’s great in everything, including here. The character even gets some dramatic moments, which he handles well. The character is easy to relate to and empathize with solely because of Cushing’s acting. There aren’t any bad actors, which is of course a positive. Some actors don’t really get the chance to be good, as most characters don’t get much screen time. Ingrid Pitt’s performance as Marcilla is decent like the rest. She plays a very seductive character, which she pulls off well. She doesn’t have many scenes outside of doing that, despite being a very prominent character, possibly because she can’t. She’s not very good at being intimidating or conservative, just sexy. One scene of her naked gives her character the impression that she’s exposed and has nothing to hide, that’s a good character moment. She’s also being sexy here.

Some highlights of the film are a few good lines. Madeline Smith as Emma gets some good dialogue to show her as a simple minded, innocent young woman. She says to a man she’s dancing with that she’s glad he’s not looking at the more eye-catchingly beautiful Marcilla, who’s looking at him. He gets an excellent line where he responds, “She’s looking at you.” The film starts by making you think it’s going in one way, goes a different one, then you realize the first part of the film was setting the stage for the rest. It’s a subtle moment that tells you information without it being narrated or said in dialogue. Some lowlights are the opening narration, which is way less effective than showing what is described in the narration. There’s also a guy in black on a horse who laughs evilly. It’s never explained what he’s about. If all his scenes were cut, no one would feel anything’s missing, as he’s just laughing on this horse. This film’s main problem consists of its many loose threads, which seem like they were forgotten about.

SPOILERS

Marcilla’s mother, the Countess, says she needs to leave town and asks The General if he’ll take in Marcilla. He agrees. Marcilla seduces the General’s niece, Laura, with it being very, very loosely implied that they had sex. Laura has nightmares and suddenly dies. Marcilla then leaves just as suddenly. A man, Morton, finds the Countess and Marcilla. The Countess does the same thing as last time, though she says her daughter’s name is Carmilla. There’s no explanation as to why a new name is adopted. Morton’s daughter is Emma, who is very similar to Laura. Many might think the first part of the film with Laura was pointless, but those scenes do a good job of telling us what’s ideally supposed to happen. The whole ordeal doesn’t take long for Marcilla to accomplish. This also ensures that time wasn’t wasted there. It’d be unfortunate if the Laura section was the first half of the film, that part is wisely pretty brief.

While Carmilla does seduce and bite Emma, she doesn’t die so soon. It’s not explained why. It’s suggested that Carmilla has to bite her multiple times. Before she can do this, the various deaths here and there make people alert of a vampire and thus, a necklace of a cross is put on Emma’s neck and garlic flowers in her room. We see intelligence on the part of Carmilla. It’s implied she sleeps with the governess of the house, who is starting then, loyal to Carmilla, but can’t stand garlic or other things like a vampire, suggesting she was turned into one.

It’s never really explained what Carmilla’s objective is. According to one character, she just wants to kill, but he could easily be wrong as it’s not explained how he knows this. Also, that answer is really unsatisfying from a storytelling perspective. Give us a reason to feel and care more. We do get a little, tiny taste at the answer. After a maid is convinced to remove the necklace and garlic, Carmilla picks up Emma in the night and says she’s taking her somewhere. Carmilla is nice to her. One of the most frustrating of the loose threads is that we never learn why or where Carmilla wanted to take her as she’s stopped by another character before she can leave the house. Maybe the reason Laura died quickly and Emma didn’t was because Carmilla didn’t want Emma to die. Maybe Carmilla liked Emma. The one time Carmilla sleeps with a man, it’s to make him loyal and she seems disinterested, unlike with the various women she’s with where at least she seems like she’s going to enjoy doing it. When the governess and another character she turns gets in her way, Carmilla kills them without seeming to like them at all. Emma is never turned into a vampire or the vampire-adjacent that the governess was.

The ending is pretty standard for a Hammer Horror. A few of the characters go to the castle where Carmilla came from. Annoyingly, there’s a guy that just tells them a bunch of plot elements. This is basically a narration. He’s just dumping a gallon of exposition on us. While this isn’t explained in this film, a standard part of being a vampire is going back to your coffin to sleep. This has been depicted in countless films. This is seemingly why Carmilla goes back to the castle. A film shouldn’t assume people would know that. An average moviegoer might be confused as to why she did that. The sleeping Carmilla is staked in the heart by The General. We also don’t know what happened to the Countess. Is she just wandering around somewhere? Does she settle down? Who knows?

OVERVIEW

The Vampire Lovers certainly has some good ideas. The underdeveloped and probably rushed plot make the film difficult to engage or appreciate. It’d be nice to have something like a remake that can fix these issues and make a more coherent production.

Caught in the Rain (1914) Review // The Tramp #9

Chaplin in the film

Caught in the Rain is basically a remake of the already not very good Mabel’s Strange Predicament. It has many of the poor Keystone tropes that Mabel Normand didn’t use as often as others did. This film is directed by someone who has never solely directed a film before, Charlie Chaplin himself! Finally, he’s got his hand in making a picture his way. While his first directorial effort, which was shared with another director, was competent and funny, this one is a mess. The film appears to be missing a little footage or the editing is so choppy and bad that scenes cut suddenly and sharply, weakening the pacing of the film.

Some of the more talented actors to appear with Chaplin in these more recent films are absent in this one, with many of the actors here appearing in the earlier Chaplin films. This includes the decently funny, but not exceptional Alice Davenport and Alice Howell. Neither get much opportunity to make an impression, good or bad. Chaplin himself is moderately funny here, but sadly not sophisticatedly funny and sometimes not funny at all, with his acting being surface level. He’s playing The Tramp drunk, he falls down and is silly, but there’s no deeper look at the character or at least some original jokes for him to play. Most of the jokes here can be seen in earlier films, namely Mabel’s Strange Predicament. The editing in this film is absurdly fast and choppy, with it sometimes being difficult to follow what’s happening. Despite Chaplin’s below quality directing and writing, other Keystone directors, who expected to dislike the film, were impressed by it.

The Tramp acts how he did in his first five films, before The Star Boarder fleshed him out more and made him nicer. The Tramp is prone to bothering people and getting drunk in Rain. He bothered people quite a bit in the first five, with it sometimes fueled by drinking. Starting with The Star Boarder, this didn’t happen when he drank. He was often disrespectful to women in some of the first ones, here the only rudeness towards women depicted is when he puts his legs on a woman’s lap that he was talking to. It’s not explained why he did it, but the action is more innocent here than in the past. I’d like to think this film is set before The Star Boarder due to the regression in the character’s development. We do get something new, The Tramp sleeps in a hotel, presuming he can afford to stay in one. The last film, Caught in a Cabaret, showed him having a job.

SPOILERS

The Tramp goes into a hotel and bothers people, seeming to be too drunk to know what he’s doing. Why doesn’t somebody who works there kick The Tramp out? He’s so drunk he keeps falling over when trying to walk. He eventually gets to his room and we see an extensive scene of The Tramp undressing to his underclothes for no reason. It is nice to see. A man, played by Mack Swain, leaves the hotel and his wife, Alice Davenport, goes to sleep. Up to this point at almost nine minutes, nothing of substance has happened. At about three minutes left of runtime, the story starts. Alice gets up, sleepwalking, and walks in The Tramp’s room. We get an actually funny sequence where The Tramp is trying to get her to her room without Mack seeing her in there and assuming the worst. Chaplin plays an unnerved and startled The Tramp very well. He takes her to her room and Mack comes in. The Tramp goes out the window right before Mack sees him. This is a fun sequence of what’s going to happen next? The only at least kind of good part of the film is now over.

A cop sees The Tramp on the balcony and for no explained reason, starts shooting at him. What? Where on Earth could this be coming from? Why is this cop doing this? The Tramp runs back inside, Mack sees him, and a bunch of cops run after The Tramp for no reason. He did nothing. The Tramp runs into his room, the cops go in the hall, Mack is accidentally hit by the cops, and The Tramp leaves his room for no reason. After The Tramp runs at his door to open it (for no reason), the door knocks the cops over and they all run away. Why? This whole fight scene is not even trying, even a little, to not be contrived. It’s also edited so fast that you feel like you’re losing your mind. What was anyone thinking when they made this? What were the other directors thinking when they watched this?

The ending seems like a parody of police today, who are criticized for starting pointless fights and being cowardly. It is a little surprising they’d be depicted like that in 1914. From what I’ve seen of the Keystone Cops, they’re foolish, but well meaning. If this parody was intentional, it should’ve been weaved into the story more, instead of being crammed into the end. We don’t know anything about these cops or why anything is happening. Chaplin would later on make films where he critiques authorities. If that is what he’s doing here, it needs some work, which the concept will get. At least let us know what you’re doing.

OVERVIEW

Caught in the Rain is a great mess with very little to redeem it. Outside of Chaplin completionists, it can only be suggested to people who like films so bizarrely incompetent that you must wonder and think on how it could be. Those wanting more than a stray few good jokes will have to look elsewhere.

Blood and Roses (1960) Review

A frame of Marcella from the film

We get a very slow, eye-catching, surreal film in Blood and Roses. Many may watch it and think it’s eventless and boring, but that just adds to the strange nature of the film. You’re on the edge of your seat waiting for what will happen next. The vibrant colors and cinematography by Claude Renoir give an appealing and easy to engage movie. The colors reflect the colorful and strange situation. The protagonist is Marcella, played by Annette Vadim, a beautiful woman that’s a step out of line with everyone. She is very quiet and contemplative throughout the film. Her actress, Annette Stroyberg, goes through subtle changes which can be hard to detect between any two scenes, but they’re still there. Once finishing the film, if one goes back to the beginning, the character is different.

Other actors in the film are good. Even the two child actors effectively give their lines and portray their characters well as imaginative children. The male lead of the film is Mel Ferrer as Leopoldo De Karnstein. He’s a friend of Marcella and he’s going to marry her friend, Georgia. He’s an odd character. He sometimes is very kind, but other times is agitated. Near the beginning, he asks Marcella to go to a party he’s throwing and when she says she doesn’t want to, he gets mad and tells her to go with an angry voice. There’s an implication that he might do something bad if she doesn’t go. No character or plot point brings up his negatives. People that mention him mention his kindness. What’s the point to these moments? Elsa Martinelli is Georgia. She is mainly just the object of desire for characters as she’s very innocent and beautiful. This admittedly simplistic character is still portrayed quite well by Martinelli.

The pacing is very slow. Admittedly, not a lot happens, but there is a method to it. The slow pacing is building this weird, dreamlike film. It is portraying the slow madness of the whole thing. Slow scenes show how characters are thinking and what they’re doing, which pays off around the end when the climax hits. The point of the film is to see how our characters act and why.

SPOILERS

In the beginning, some characters are discussing vampires, Marcella is present. We get some foreshadowing when a character assumes that a vampire would be male. It’s relayed that about two-hundred years ago, all the vampires were killed by the people they were stalking. One may have escaped. A little bit later, guess what Marcella finds in a secret room of a castle? The vampire is female and Marcella looks like her. Some have said that Marcella is killed here and replaced by the vampire, Carmilla, but that wasn’t made very clear. Marcella acts increasingly agitated in the film. If Carmilla immediately replaced her, you’d think she’d act completely differently as we’re now dealing with a different person, but the slow transition makes one think Marcella is slowly being turned.

Vadim does a great job of showing her turns. Marcella’s progressively losing herself. She’s drawn to this beautiful white dress Carmilla wore and walks around in it. As if the dress represents her loss of control and humanity. Blood and Roses has some Lesbian subtext, just like in Dracula’s Daughter. While Carmilla was said to be with a man, perhaps Marcella overpowers this a bit or Carmilla didn’t like the man. There’s a scene of her chasing a girl, brilliantly executed with no cuts and no music, perhaps to suggest she’s looking for women, even though she’s not supposed to. However, one character, who has embellished stories of his to children, says that female vampires only go for female victims. While perhaps he was knowingly lying, why show that scene anyways? Why do female vampires go for women? Are they all Lesbians? What if this film is using female vampires as a metaphor for Lesbians? “Lesbians only go for female victims.” There could be an insinuation that Lesbians are vicious and predatory or they’re perceived that way.

At one point in the film, Marcella sees she’s bleeding when she looks in a mirror, but she’s not bleeding when she looks down at herself. She’s panicked by this. If vampires are a metaphor for Homosexuals, than the vampiristic blood would represent the gay desires she wants to suppress. She’s also bleeding from where her heart is, adding to this. Later on, Leopoldo kisses Marcella, while she doesn’t reject it, she doesn’t initiate it or show signs of being thrilled by it. Here, a man is appealing to her and her facial expression suggests, “Whatever.” Leopoldo is also cheating on his fiancée here, suggesting this is something you’re not supposed to like as it’s betrayal. This scene repeats itself when Georgia is disturbed by how strangely Marcella is acting. Ultimately, Marcella goes in and kisses Georgia. The vampire is going for the woman too innocent and kind, who is the object of desire, the prize. Georgia is “betraying” Leopoldo by not stopping this as soon as it happens, but this is also another representation of needing to let yourself free. Leopoldo does it to Marcella who does it to Georgia. I don’t care if this is wrong, I just got to! The two are interrupted before we see what Marcella would do next, but I’m driven crazy thinking about what Marcella’s objective was? Would she bite Georgia? Would she try to have sex with her? What?!

Georgia dreams later, among other things, the dream features Georgia and Marcella dancing. This may represent Georgia’s desires for Marcella as well. The scene of them dancing is beautiful. The dream sequence is especially striking as when it starts, the color film turns to black and white, but we see the color red, signifying blood and the heart. Georgia wakes up convinced Marcella will die. Not long afterwards, she falls on a stake wearing the dress and accidentally impales her heart. This film leaves you wondering how much of it is a dream or imagined, with some saying it all is. Some say that Marcella simply thinks she’s a vampire, but is not in actuality. Some say it’s all straightforward. Any possibility seems possible and like it could work in the story. If it’s a dream, it’s probably the dream of Georgia or Marcella, which makes the film even gayer as they’re dreaming about being together. If it’s straightforward, we’re still seeing this tortured soul who doesn’t know what to do. How does she act with Georgia or Leopoldo?

If it’s a delusion of Marcella, it leads to quandering. “What’s the fuel for it all?” In the beginning, Marcella looks in the direction of Leopoldo and Georgia and seems infatuated. There’s a bit of ambiguity as to who she’s looking at. Characters often say in the film that Marcella is in love with Leopoldo, but if the film is Marcella’s embellishing mind, then the story is her scream that this is not the case, that it’s actually Georgia she loves. When Leopoldo kisses Marcella, if she loved him, she could’ve just kept kissing him and possibly do more. She never initiates something with him. It appears metaphoric that everyone perceives her as loving Leopoldo, when the truth is that she loves the person right by him. The vampire looking like Marcella could suggest that one’s feelings and instincts never die. They’ll hide away, but they’re always there and they might come out at times.

OVERVIEW

Blood and Roses is a classy affair. It paints in blurry lines and gives you a lot to think about while still delivering an engaging and easy to follow story with drama, suspense, and little music, but the music present is a very pretty Harp score.