I saw the film Cannery Row, based on two John Steinbeck novels (it was in fact largely taken from the sequel, Sweet Thursday) not too long ago. Ah the wonders of easily obtainable films (again, the library approach this time). It had various familiar faces, with Nick Nolte and Debra Winger (as the love interest, again taken from the sequel to the original book) as the leads and character actors such as M. Emmet Walsh in support. John Huston narrated, providing as with the rest suitable character and flavor.
The film as a whole was somewhat disjointed with Nolte not quite working as "Doc." He seemed a tad too passive and unsure with the role at times and the bearded original seemed better suited for another actor, though his voice did seem to fit the role. He does okay though as does Debra Winger, who again might not be who I would pick for the floozy (such is a fitting word for the milieu here) he falls for. Winger has that affected delivery at times that seems a bit phony, but they still make a good couple, and the film as a whole is a nice lark. As noted, it feels right and the supporting cast are fun. The film does have a feel of being a collection of vignettes at times, but that's fine. It is well worth a look.
Having read the books now (almost finished the second), the film is overall fairly loyal to the Depression Era story of bums, whores and a marine biologist running specimen supply service who found a home for himself among the others on "Cannery Row." The guy running the store (the sequel version) was more active in the book and the guy apparently destined to run for President wasn't black but the general story is the same (the sequel takes place about a decade later, but the film combined the two). The books, of course, are able to handle more ground. I have read Of Mice and Men, but none other of this author. I enjoyed these, a sympathetic look at the types the Bowery Boys might appreciated.
---
To toss it in, I also watched The Conspirator, which focuses on the military trial of Mary Surratt, who was involved (somehow) with the Lincoln assassination. I recently read The Assassin's Accomplice to help prepare myself for the film, a book that argues that she clearly did conspire with the others. Her son was a Confederate courier and clearly worked with Booth in some fashion and she even delivered field glasses to an associate on the day of the murder. After the heat of the war passed, the Supreme Court held such a trial to be unconstitutional and when her son came back to the country, the jury hung on his guilt. Even here, the panel was hesitant to give her the death penalty. Some time in prison was probably a suitable punishment.
Robert Redford, director here, sees parallels with the current moves to not provide regular trials on alleged terrorists. The months after the murder of the President as the last bits of the Civil War died out is a bit more serious, particularly before current ideas of civil justice. Of course, the fact American citizens were involved (and a woman -- the first woman executed by the federal government) adds another wrinkle. I do think a civil trial was appropriate, though there was some belief the Confederate government was involved. Even there, it would have been treason, and the Supreme Court case (Ex Parte Milligan) didn't let that stop them. The trial's result was not really a travesty of justice (not saying it was okay, but there are degrees) all things considered, though Mary Surratt was something of a weak link (some hints they actually wanted her son, but he wasn't much involved with the final plot).
The book was a somewhat brief account, but was useful in telling her story. I asked a person familiar with the era if there were any good books on the case and he said that there actually weren't too many out there. As to the film, which (as is often the case) actually focuses on someone else (her young lawyer), raises various things that the book touches upon. It looks good and seems to re-create the era and trial convincingly. Some effort was made in that department. And, it isn't some total whitewash -- she lets out she knew about an earlier kidnapping attempt and the bottom line was that there was reasonable doubt enough to be uncomfortable with the use of the military tribunal.
Dramatically, it was good, but somewhat disappointing. It didn't seem to have that extra spark; it seemed sorta educational, not too surprising. I didn't even recognize Kevin Kline was Edwin Stanton though -- looking closely, I saw him, but the first go along, no. The cast as a whole were impressive. I would recommend it, since it is still a good film, but I was somewhat disappointed.
The film as a whole was somewhat disjointed with Nolte not quite working as "Doc." He seemed a tad too passive and unsure with the role at times and the bearded original seemed better suited for another actor, though his voice did seem to fit the role. He does okay though as does Debra Winger, who again might not be who I would pick for the floozy (such is a fitting word for the milieu here) he falls for. Winger has that affected delivery at times that seems a bit phony, but they still make a good couple, and the film as a whole is a nice lark. As noted, it feels right and the supporting cast are fun. The film does have a feel of being a collection of vignettes at times, but that's fine. It is well worth a look.
Having read the books now (almost finished the second), the film is overall fairly loyal to the Depression Era story of bums, whores and a marine biologist running specimen supply service who found a home for himself among the others on "Cannery Row." The guy running the store (the sequel version) was more active in the book and the guy apparently destined to run for President wasn't black but the general story is the same (the sequel takes place about a decade later, but the film combined the two). The books, of course, are able to handle more ground. I have read Of Mice and Men, but none other of this author. I enjoyed these, a sympathetic look at the types the Bowery Boys might appreciated.
---
To toss it in, I also watched The Conspirator, which focuses on the military trial of Mary Surratt, who was involved (somehow) with the Lincoln assassination. I recently read The Assassin's Accomplice to help prepare myself for the film, a book that argues that she clearly did conspire with the others. Her son was a Confederate courier and clearly worked with Booth in some fashion and she even delivered field glasses to an associate on the day of the murder. After the heat of the war passed, the Supreme Court held such a trial to be unconstitutional and when her son came back to the country, the jury hung on his guilt. Even here, the panel was hesitant to give her the death penalty. Some time in prison was probably a suitable punishment.
Robert Redford, director here, sees parallels with the current moves to not provide regular trials on alleged terrorists. The months after the murder of the President as the last bits of the Civil War died out is a bit more serious, particularly before current ideas of civil justice. Of course, the fact American citizens were involved (and a woman -- the first woman executed by the federal government) adds another wrinkle. I do think a civil trial was appropriate, though there was some belief the Confederate government was involved. Even there, it would have been treason, and the Supreme Court case (Ex Parte Milligan) didn't let that stop them. The trial's result was not really a travesty of justice (not saying it was okay, but there are degrees) all things considered, though Mary Surratt was something of a weak link (some hints they actually wanted her son, but he wasn't much involved with the final plot).
The book was a somewhat brief account, but was useful in telling her story. I asked a person familiar with the era if there were any good books on the case and he said that there actually weren't too many out there. As to the film, which (as is often the case) actually focuses on someone else (her young lawyer), raises various things that the book touches upon. It looks good and seems to re-create the era and trial convincingly. Some effort was made in that department. And, it isn't some total whitewash -- she lets out she knew about an earlier kidnapping attempt and the bottom line was that there was reasonable doubt enough to be uncomfortable with the use of the military tribunal.
Dramatically, it was good, but somewhat disappointing. It didn't seem to have that extra spark; it seemed sorta educational, not too surprising. I didn't even recognize Kevin Kline was Edwin Stanton though -- looking closely, I saw him, but the first go along, no. The cast as a whole were impressive. I would recommend it, since it is still a good film, but I was somewhat disappointed.