The power of mini-series: or three series I always liked (and are now on youtube).

Once upon a time there were television series that didn’t go on indefinitely from one new ‘king on the iron throne’ to the next or from one ‘walker herd’ to the next. These were called mini-series. Shows that would tell a complete story in three or four episodes. Oh…hang on, they still exist? Like the brilliant 'The night manager'?
 

Let me try again. Here I wish to tackle three mini-series from the past that resonated with me. And, luckily, they are all on youtube nowadays. I’m going to give a short review for each of them and hopefully you’ll watch them because they are very (very) good. 

 

The phantom of the opera (Link)

I’ve always been a big fan of the phantom of the opera. Whether it’s the original book by Gaston Leroux or the various movie versions (and one Polish cartoon). I’ve always liked this idea of a murderous fiend hiding in the catacombs of the Paris opera house. I’m sure the story is familiar but let me quickly summarize:

The phantom of the opera is about a disfigured man called Erique living in the cellars of the Paris opera house. He has lived there all his life and –as such- became very adapt in classical music. Then one day a young girl Christine comes to work at the opera. He sees her, falls in love, and decides to teach her to become a professional singer. However, Christine falls in love with a handsome suitor named Raoul. Which, to say the least, doesn’t sit well with the psychotic Erique.

I think there are only two versions of ‘the phantom’ that I disliked. One is the strange Dario Argento version with an automated rat-catching-machine (–far too much focus on the bloodshed). And the other is Webber’s sequel to his famous musical: Love never dies which basically destroys the original story (but I do like that song: beauty underneath).

But if there are two versions that I did like they would have to be the 1943 version with Claude Rains –If you wish to know where this famous image of a mask comes from, this is the version- and the 1990 mini-series. 

Now keep in mind I have seen every single ‘phantom’-adaptation ever to grace the screen, including the original man-with-a-thousand faces/Lon Chaney version (both the silent and sound version –it can be found on archive.org if you wish to see it). So what makes the 1990 version such a pleasure for me?

The biggest reason has to be that it is in no sense a horror-story. The phantom (being a psychotic and all) naturally lends itself nicely for some 19^th century Freddy Krueger kind of story. But here it isn’t. Moreover you don’t even get to see Erique’s mangled face. You simply get to see Christine seeing it for the first time and fainting. That’s all you need to know about how grossly disfigured the man is. There is no unmask reveal.

First and foremost this is a story about love. A love between a father and a son. A three-way love between Christine and Erique and Raoul. And all the (almost opera) drama that comes from it.

Yes the original story is changed dramatically. Erique, here, is less of a villain and more of a misunderstood man. But the main themes about love and pain stay front and centre stage.

Second, this is one of the few movies that honestly tries to imagine what a man living in the cellars of the opera would do with his time. So the set-design of the cellars are –to say the least- grandiose. There are entire make-shift forests down there. All kinds of pieces of décor have been stolen by the phantom during the years to decorate his makeshift home. In short, the sets looked lived in. They honestly look like the home of a lonely madman.

Which brings me to the acting. The phantom here is played by the great Charles Dance (yes, Tywin Lannister from Game of Thrones). Naturally because he’s behind a mask all the time you’ll have trouble recognizing him, but trust me it’s him. And he’s playing against both the legendary Burt Lancaster as (slight spoiler) his father and former manager of the opera house and the delightfully lovable Terri Polo as Christine. The on screen chemistry of these three players is already magnificent to watch. But the supporting cast that surrounds them (including one of the best wicked prima donna ever to grace the story) supports them in their moment to shine.

Now the main reason why this movie works is because of the music supporting the story. It is phantom of the opera after all so there’d better be some opera in it (and you’d be surprised how little opera is used in a lot of the other adaptations). There is and it is perfectly keyed to wonderful standalone scenes. To name three:

Christine versus Carlotta.

Christine has secretly been training under the phantom’s guidance to become a better singer. One day he sets her a task to go to the local theatre bar and sing a song there. She goes up on stage and (nervous) starts to sing. The arrogant prima donna Carlotta decides to ‘help’ the poor girl and goes on stage next to her. A sing-off happens in which the prima donna is absolutely destroyed by Christine’s soprano.

It’s a beautiful scene to witness and the music enhances this ‘battle’.

Christine’s childhood.

A small flashback occurs shortly after in which Christine remembers Raoul as the boy who lived in the mansion where she and her father once worked at as servants. Raoul has always (even in the book even though he’s a protagonist character)  been a bit uneven in the phantom-movies. Usually he’s just the handsome lad to save the day who happens to have quite a bit of money to boot. Since we all have a tendency to support the underdog. The phantom -in this case- becomes said underdog. Regardless of the fact that he’s a psychotic killer.

The best way to tackle this is by giving Raoul a good natured personality. In the 1943 version this is done by making him a slightly-clumsy singer. In this version this is achieved by making his character not care about the class system.

Christine, a servant girl, secretly tries some keys on the piano she’s cleaning. Raoul catches her but instead of scowling her he plays a song with her. They become childhood friends shortly after. Naturally his mother isn’t very pleased when she finds out about this class-different friendship later on and sends Christine away.

This is a great way of introducing Raoul because it shows him caring before Christine becomes the famous opera singer. And the schism his character will eventually create between Christine and Erique is already set because of this past introduction.

And then there’s also the song: ‘Laissez-moi planter le mai’. It is a small but wonderful song (nowhere to be found on the internet) that encapsulates all of the flashback. These are two young friends who were torn apart. Now that they refound each other love can grow.

The big finale.

This is the main reason why this movie is so adored by many Phantom-fans around the world. And, naturally, because it is the ending of the movie this part of the text is quite spoiler heavy.

Erique has just been left by Christine because she got scared of his face. Christine meanwhile is living with Raoul torn because of her betrayal of her friend and master. And Raoul, of course, is jealous because the love of his live has feelings for another man.

Christine has to perform on stage. The opera is Faust. About an aging man who sells his soul to the devil Mephistopheles to win the heart of a younger woman.  I assume that the parallels are obvious.

Christine is singing on stage and Erique –suffering from tuberculosis- hears her. Even though the entire French police-force is waiting in the main hall ready to kill ‘the Phantom’ Erique still goes up to box number five to watch his beloved. He sees her, she sees him and Erique starts to sing a duet with Christine. Then the actor singing Faust (a bit flustered because somebody stole his line) starts to sing along and the duet becomes a trio. Then the actor playing the devil gets involved and it’s a quartet. All the while Erique and Christine are singing how they love each other – making amends- with Raoul in the audience being tremendously jealous.

This power of this scene is even underlined by the main police officer ordering his men to ‘wait a bit’ before interrupting the proceedings by shooting at the phantom. Only when the song is done does the firing start and the phantom has to make his escape.*

On the roof the phantom gets cornered by the police. He saves Raoul from certain death (thus making amends with him as well), before getting shot in a mercy killing by his own father. But before Erique dies Christine removes his mask en kisses the face that once scared her that much.

It’s this grand finale that actually caused me to import the DVD from Korea of all places (the furthest I ever ordered a DVD from). Because it’s such a satisfying finale that goes out like an opera has to go out: big, strong and on the highest note.

Nowadays, we don’t need to order any DVD’s we can watch the movies back on youtube. So if you got four and a half hours to spare – emjoy

*During his escape he pushes the actor playing the Devil aside. I always like this little touch. Who’s the biggest bad guy here?

 

Bangkok Hilton (Link)

A pretty famous one for my second entry. I’m guessing but I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the movie that catapulted Nicole Kidman’s career in Hollywood. It’s a (almost) five hour drama of a daughter trying to find her father. Whilst he tries to make accept his past. The story in short (I’m going to allow some spoilers here to make the rest or the article easier to write):

A former lieutenant of the British army during the Second World War has been convicted for war crimes and flees the country. The crimes he committed are twofold. First it is the duty of any British soldier in captivity to try and escape the prison they are incarcerated in. For him this was a camp in Bangkok Thailand. However, every Brit escaping would result in the Japanese executing those left behind. So, to spare lives, this lieutenant ratted on the would-be-escapees the moment the tunnel to escape was finished.

He didn’t know that the bombing of Hiroshima happened on the same day. The war was over for him two days later. The second reason for this ‘crime’ (it’s obviously an ambiguous term here) is that his father was a highly decorated veteran of the First World War. Thus, this crime shamed his father.

Finding solitude in exile the former lieutenant falls in love with a woman in Australia. But when his pasts catches up with him he flees once more, leaving her pregnant of a daughter.

Years later, after her mother died, the daughter goes looking for her father. In London she meets her uncle and he sets her on her way to Bangkok where her father lives.

Once in Bangkok –through the intermediary of a lawyer- her father basically tells her to go away. Accepting the fact that she tried she goes. However, a charming boyfriend she picked up in London stuffed her suitcase full of cocaine. And when she’s arrested at the airport he merrily leaves her behind.

She is sent to Bangkok Hilton. The nickname of a prison which happens to be built right on top of the Japanese camp her father was in all those years before. Knowing nobody in Thailand but her father’s lawyer she calls him. Pretending to be the lawyer’s assistant her father helps out as well. Trying to free her from the death penalty.

Once one of the friends she made in prison gets executed and her own date of death has been set she, the lawyer and her father devise a plan to escape the prison by using the tunnel made years before.  

Why do I like this movie? For starters it’s a film with a lot of familiar faces before they became famous. Denholm Elliott as the father is better known for his turn as the goofy Marcus Brody in the Indiana Jones series. Nicole Kidman, I assume we all know. Hugo Weaving who plays the lawyer later on became Elron in Lord of the Rings (and V of course).* Even Deborah Kara Unger is in it in a small but interesting role.

But, of course, it are the main themes of a love between a parent and a child and the ghosts of ones’ past that resonate the loudest. Let’s start with the second one:

The ghosts of the past.

The father character is tormented. Once you meet him in Thailand he’s pretty much an all out drunkard. And of course it is quite a catch-22 that torments him. Should he have let those soldiers escape then he would be responsible for the deaths of countless more. But not letting them escape is the equivalent to murder.

Played beautifully by Denholm Elliott you understand his fears. But because of the story these fears are made acceptable through the love he develops for his daughter. One of the final scenes inside the sewers wherein he accepts his past shows this. He’s on a mission to save his daughter. Without highlighting it the movie tells the audience that –for him- by saving his daughter from certain death he can somehow find peace of the crime he committed years before. Fascination stuff.

The love between a parent and a child.

This is the biggest theme throughout the movie. But because for almost the entire running time the father-character keeps up the lie that he’s just an assistant the love grows as a friendship between an elderly man and a young woman. Only in the brilliantly played last scene in which the father says the words: “ I’m her father!” (I always loved that look of Nicole Kidman’s eyes in this moment. A mixture between ‘ I knew it!’  and  ‘ Oh daddy!’ ) does this friendship acknowledge what the daughter character subconsciously knew all along.

Then, for the daughter, the penny drops as to why this man was so caring for her when he first met her. Then she suddenly understands why it was him and not the lawyer who went after her in the sewers. But most of all it acknowledges what she already knew deep down. 

The prison system in Asia.

Naturally there’s an elephant in the room. When this movie was released it was heralded as a statement against the prison system in third-world countries. And still, to this day, there are people imprisoned in Asia (I wouldn’t call it a third-world country anymore) under terrible circumstances.

To paraphrase a famous quote: ‘You can read the state of a country by the way they treat their prisoners’ .

If you wish to watch this movie from this perspective of suffering and hardship then Bangkok Hilton doesn’t disappoint. The death-scene of the daughter’s friend (and her younger brother) is shocking and a cut-clear statement against the death penalty.

But I never focussed on this element. It’s there and it’s a very important part of the story. But for me this is a movie about parental love. The horrors of the prison or the drug-trafficking boyfriend are parts of this story.

In the end everything is well. The boyfriend gets arrested (almost in an afterthought)  and father and daughter walk the beach reunited, their past the past.

*I also loved him in the little known Phil Collins picture Frauds. Yes, that Phil Collins from the movie Hook (look it up). 

 

To catch a killer (Link)

A very dark tale to end with. Mainly because it all (pretty much) truly happened. The search and capture of John Wayne Gacy. The story: 

John Wayne Gacy –when you google him you’ll quickly find a picture of him in clown make-up- was a serial killer who liked to rape and murder young boys/men. He was a big, strong and clever man who got away with what he did for a very long time. To this day the authorities still aren’t sure how many murders he has committed. This movie deals with a police officer who tries to capture Gacy. 

As you’ve read throughout this article I have a tendency to highlight scenes that I liked. Scenes I find brilliant and therefore elevate the movie. To catch a killer has a lot of those scenes but, at the same time, also has this early 1990’s real-life-stories vibe to it that slightly diminishes the power of the tale.

Is it a bad movie? Not by a long shot. The main performances are fantastic. Brian Dennehy especially  is absolutely frighteningly ‘ good’  as John Gacy. It’s just that, because the movie focuses on a real case it has a tendency to become a bit Hallmark (even though I love Hallmark’s One against the wind, another mini-series I’ll tackle some other time since it isn’t on youtube.). But don’t let that disappoint because there are a great deal of fascinating scenes within this movie. I’ll focus on three of them: 

The psychic 
During one scene the police officer is at wits end. So he tries something desperate and contacts a psychic. Naturally he’s bit biased about her abilities. But, as a fun twist, she doesn’t care. She knows what she can do and she only wants to help. No harm no foul- as it were.

This is an interesting approach to a psychic because the audience doesn’t have to question her talents. Just go along with it.

Then she goes into a trance and starts drawing pictures of graves while muttering: ‘so…so, many of them.’ 

True that that’s the supernatural angle that was all the rage back in the 1990’s. But then again, because the movie tells the audience not to put too much faith in case-solving possibilities of this psychic it allows to create drama. Through this scene the movie gives the viewer a dramatic look at the scale of the crimes Gacy committed. This isn’t just one boy missing, it are several. 

"Don’t let him go!"
Another scene I truly loved is the ‘lawyer scene’. Gacy is constantly being followed by the police. They know it is him but they can’t prove anything. So frustrated and angry he locks himself up in his lawyer’s office.

Now the lawyer, at first, is angry with the cops for harassing his client. But then a night goes by. The next morning, soaking in sweet, the lawyer comes out of the office and starts pleading with the officers:  “Don’t let him go. He’s like an animal in there. Shoot his tires if you have to just don’t let him go…!”

And then the door opens and out comes a beast that was once a man. Gacy –high on pills at that time- truly shows his true psychotic persona.

It’s such a strong scene because the lawyer who is supposed to protect his client betrays him because there’s no conscious in the world that would enable him. This sets up the moment before the door opens and the pure evilness of Gacy steps out. 

"What more do you need!"
And then there’s the third great scene. After a previous failed momentum of searching Gacy’s house the police officer tries for a second house warrant. The judge isn’t keen on giving him one. But then the main character goes on to list all the things he knows. All the things that would incriminate Gacy if ‘only they could prove it’, topping it off with a: “what more do you need?“.

After two or three hours watching the cops trying to capture Gacy and Gacy –in turn- escaping once again it is a very satisfying summary of all the things learned so far. Once the police officer starts naming all these things it becomes cut and clear that everything points at Gacy as a killer. Now all they need is the proof.

There are a lot of other great scenes in this movie. But these three are definitely some of them. To catch a killer is a great inside look in the investigation of a serial killer. Wherein the focus of interest for once doesn’t rely on the bloodshed that accompanies it but the sorrow it leaves behind.