Take 3: The Last Child Review

When the future is depicted in made-for-TV movies, that production is typically presented with a distinct, futuristic aesthetic. This creative choice makes that movie’s world look and feel different from the one the audience is living in. But when I came across the 1971 film, The Last Child, I took note of how the story adopted a “contemporary” appearance. That is the reason why I’m writing about this movie for the Futurethon event! Instead of putting on a futuristic appearance, The Last Child introduces their version of the future in more subtle ways. The dialogue among the characters is how the film’s creative team brings this idea to the screen. Sometimes, futuristic stories will feature a conflict that strikes fear into the story’s characters as well as the audience. The world in The Last Child discusses the subject of population control, which presents a dire circumstance for the protagonists.

The Last Child poster created by Aaron Spelling Productions and American Broadcasting Company (ABC)

Things I liked about the film:

Stand-out performances: When I watch a movie, sometimes an actor or actress will give a performance that stands out among the movie’s cast, leaving a memorable impression on me. In The Last Child, there were three actors who gave stand-out performances! I’ve seen some of Ed Asner’s films prior to watching The Last Child. In these films, Ed’s character has typically been presented as a friendly, kind-hearted individual. But in the 1971 made-for-tv movie, Ed’s role was different from those I saw in the past. Portraying a police officer named Barstow, Ed carried his character with a no-nonsense attitude. At the same time, he incorporated a sense of confidence into his portrayal, which allowed Ed to go toe-to-toe with other actors. One of these actors was Van Heflin, who portrayed Senator George. Van also incorporated confidence in his performance. However, this form of confidence was more dignified, reflective of George’s political background. Yet, there was a kindness within George, a kindness that felt genuine. The scene where the film’s protagonists, Allen and Karen, meet George for the first time perfectly showcases this kindness, as it can be heard in George’s voice and seen in his eyes.

The last stand-out performance came from Harry Guardino! Portraying Karen’s brother, Howard, Harry presents a man who is both concerned about his influential position and scared for his family. In a scene where Howard is trying to get Karen out of the Population Control Center, Howard’s voice sounds very professional over the phone. He even sounds professional when speaking to his brother-in-law. But throughout that scene, there is fear in Howard’s eyes. Because he is in the presence of family, Howard feels he can safely express this fear. The ability to present both the professional and emotional sides of Howard was made possible by Harry’s versatile acting talents!

The cinematography: Cinematography in made-for-tv movies can be hit or miss. It can either be surprisingly good or obviously bad. But in The Last Child, I was surprised by the cinematography, as some scenes were captured in ways I wasn’t expecting. In scenes where characters were moving in public crowds, the camera would use close-up shots. The camera would also be placed in front of or behind the characters. These techniques gave the audience the illusion they were moving alongside the characters, making those scenes feel immersive.

Senator George’s house: A location in a movie is meant to visually represent the environment the characters exist in. This holds true for a character’s house. As I mentioned in this review, George is a Senator. The interior and exterior spaces of George’s house are a reflection of his power and influence. Brick and stone make up the face of his house. Large, paned glass windows hint at rooms with high ceilings and expansive square feet. Inside George’s house, luxurious details can be seen in each room. One room features a floor to ceiling, cream colored fireplace, complete with carved detailing. Another room includes a dainty white, oval table that not only boasts drawers, it also appears to be utilized as a small dining table. These details show how the creative team cared about how George’s personal living space was presented in their movie!

Futurethon banner created by Gill from Realweegiemidget Reviews and Barry from Cinematic Catharsis

What I didn’t like about the film:

An unexplained future: In my review of Night of the Comet, I said a film’s science needed to be explained, in order for the audience to understand what’s happening in the story. The same can be said if creating a story set in the future. There has to be a reason for a film’s world being so different from the audience’s. These reasons can give the audience an understanding for these differences, allowing them to contemplate how they’d respond to that film’s world. In The Last Child, though, it was never explained why the movie’s world had strict population control laws. None of the characters mentioned how these laws come to be, what led to their existence. The audience was forced to accept the world of The Last Child at face value.

Little sense of urgency: The Last Child is about a couple expecting their second child, as their first child died shortly after birth. Because of their world’s strict population control laws, only allowing one child per family, the couple has a very difficult conflict on their hands. Despite this conflict, the sense of urgency in The Last Child was far and few between. There were times when a sense of urgency was present, such as during the film’s climax. But this element of the story was not consistent. This prevented me from truly fearing for the couple’s safety and well-being. It also caused the story to feel like it had too many low-stakes.

Inconsistent technology: The use of technology is established in the world of The Last Child. In fact, the incorporation of technology was introduced toward the beginning of the film. When Allen and his friend are questioned by the police, a police officer puts their identification cards into a computer. This computer not only reveals a person’s identification number, it also records a person’s personal information. But when the Allen’s wife, Karen, is taken to the Population Control Center and can’t remember her identification number, the Center’s nurse doesn’t entertain the idea of looking Karen’s number up on the computer. Perhaps this nurse didn’t have the authority to use one of these computers. However, her reason for not using it wasn’t explained in the dialogue.

New York City skyline with letters image created by Freepik at freepik.com. <a href=’https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/new-york-skyline-typographic-silhouette_719554.htm’>Designed by Freepik</a>. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/background”>Background vector created by Freepik</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

My overall impression:

The Last Child is the seventh made-for-tv movie from the 1970s I’ve reviewed. These seven films have ranged from decent to ok to underwhelming. The Last Child is, in my opinion, in the latter category. The idea of a futuristic story with a “comtemporary” aesthetic is one I haven’t often seen through the made-for-tv movie realm. But in The Last Child, this idea seemed better on paper than on screen. The small amount of urgency kept the story’s stakes low, preventing me from feeling scared for the protagonists’ safety and well-being. The reason for the population control laws in The Last Child was never explained, forcing the audience to accept the movie’s world at face value. Even when there were things about the film I did like, such as stand-out performances and Senator George’s house, it wasn’t enough to leave a lasting, memorable impression on me. I’m starting to wonder if I’ll ever find a made-for-tv movie from the 1970s I like?

Overall score: 5.1 out of 10

Have you seen The Last Child? Are there any futuristic movies with “comtemporary” aesthetics you like watching? Let me know in the comment section!

Have fun in the future!

Sally Silverscreen

Gold Sally Awards Returns with the Best Supporting Actor and Actress Polls!

Hello everyone! The Gold Sally Awards’ polls are back! This time, you get to choose who will be crowned best supporting actor and actress of the year. Both polls will begin today, on April 1st, and end on April 8th. While you can vote for more than one nominee, you can only vote once per person. The link to the polls will be located under each poll. Just click on the word ‘PollMaker’.

Who is the Best Supporting Actor of 2021?

 

1. Noriyuki “Pat” Morita — The Karate Kid (1984)
2. Van Heflin — The Three Musketeers (1948)
3. Jeff Conaway — Making of a Male Model
4. William R. Moses — Perry Mason: The Case of the Telltale Talk Show Host
5. Anthony Hopkins — The Elephant Man
6. John Huntington — Rigoletto
7. Robert Mitchum — Cape Fear (1962)
8. Booboo Stewart — Let Him Go
9. Andy Devine — A Star Is Born (1937)
10. Reilly Dolman — Poisoned in Paradise: A Martha’s Vineyard Mystery
Created with PollMaker
Who is the Best Supporting Actress of 2021?

 

1. Marion O’Dwyer — Chasing Leprechauns
2. Jacqueline Chan — The World of Suzie Wong
3. Lesley Manville — Let Him Go 
4. Alex Datcher — Perry Mason: The Case of the Telltale Talk Show Host
5. Jean Porter — Bathing Beauty
6. Tracey Williams — Rigoletto
7. Marisol Nichols — Holly and Ivy
8. Rita Moreno — The King and I (1956)
9. Lori Martin — Cape Fear (1962)
10. Nhi Do — Poisoned in Paradise: A Martha’s Vineyard Mystery
Created with PollMaker

Have fun voting!

Sally Silverscreen

Take 3: The Three Musketeers (1948) Review

Last year, I participated in the Classic Literature On Film Blogathon. Since I was reading To Kill a Mockingbird at the time, I chose to review the book’s film adaptation. For this year’s event, I selected the 1948 version of The Three Musketeers! Because I’m using my TBR Tin to choose which book to read next, I wasn’t able to read the source material before I saw the movie, as I’m currently reading The Shadowy Horses by Susanna Kearsley. I was recommended this film by Patricia from Caftan Woman. As I try to see as many film suggestions as I can, this became one reason why I selected The Three Musketeers for this blogathon. I have seen the 1993 adaptation of the story. But I can’t give an honest opinion on that film, as I haven’t seen the movie in years. What will my thoughts be on the 1948 adaptation of The Three Musketeers? Keep reading to find out!

The Three Musketeers (1948) poster created by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Loew’s, Inc.

Things I liked about the film:

The acting: Because The Three Musketeers contained an ensemble cast, it’s difficult to choose a favorite performance. However, I will still mention a few of them. For me, Gene Kelly is always going to be known for his performances in musicals. Seeing him work with different acting material was very interesting, as it forced him to utilize his expressions and emotions more. Out of Gene’s films I’ve seen so far, his portrayal of D’Artagnan has become one of my favorites! This performance was so well-rounded, D’Artagnan came across as a mutli-layered character. As Gene had a variety of expressions at his disposal, he was able to adapt to any situation D’Artagnan faced. I am not familiar with Van Heflin as an actor. But I was impressed with his portrayal of fellow Musketeer, Athos! Van’s best scene was when Athos drunkenly tells a story of an aristocrat who was betrayed by a woman from the country he fell in love with. Even though Athos is disoriented by the alcohol, you can tell there is deep emotion in his voice and eyes. Another performance that also became a favorite came from Lana Turner, who portrayed Countess de Winter! Her standout scene was when her character was in prison. The Countess appears disheveled as she begs for her life to end. What made this scene so memorable was the amount of emotion Lana put into her role. She presented a character that was so desperate, she’d be willing to do anything to get out of it.

The costumes: When it comes to scene-stealers, the costumes in The Three Musketeers definitely stole the show! I liked how colorful they were, as bright hues were used on various pieces of apparel. It not only made the characters stand out, but it also helped when telling characters apart from one another. The amount of detail on these costumes was also exquisite! In one scene, the Duke of Buckingham wore a purple shawl. Gold embroidery complimented the shawl’s shade of purple and prevented the piece from becoming plain. At a dinner party, Queen Anne wore a white gown. This gown also contained gold details, which were found on the skirt and bodice. Small jewels near the top of the dress completed Queen Anne’s elegant look!

The set design: If you’re going to create a period film, you have to pay attention to the finer details that go into each set. These details will reflect the effort, research, and care that went into how these sets look. The sets in The Three Musketeers show how much the film’s creative team cared about the presentation of their final product! What I love about the sets in this movie are the fine details that can be found. Carved images are shown in the Duke of Buckingham’s study, covering the fireplace and doorframe in these wooden pictures. They can also be found in other rooms and on other materials, such as on a tin-plated cabinet in a General’s office. My favorite design detail can be found in Queen Anne’s sitting room. As Queen Anne and the Duke of Buckingham are standing near the fireplace, Queen Anne turns a knob found near the top of the fireplace. This action reveals a secret compartment that hides a box of diamonds.

The fight choreography: Any action movie is just as good as its fight choreography. The performative presentation of the fights in The Three Musketeers helped make these fights so memorable! Because of Gene Kelly’s dancing skills, he was able to incorporate leaps into his fight sequences. Watching D’Artagnan leap from place to place gave him a natural superpower that he was able to use to his advantage! Humor can also be found during these fight sequences, which prevented them from being too dark or serious. D’Artagnan’s first duel was against the head of the French police. During this duel, hilarity ensued, from D’Artagnan splashing water in his opponent’s face to pushing his opponent in a pond. This inclusion of humor in the fight choreography allowed the creative team to present these fights in creative and interesting ways!

The 2021 Classic Literature On Film Blogathon banner created by Paul from Silver Screen Classics.

What I didn’t like about the film:

D’Artagnan’s romantic relationships: After rescuing Constance from a home invasion, D’Artagnan falls in love with her. He not only tells Constance he loves her, but they also share a romantic kiss. While I liked Constance and D’Artagnan’s relationship, I felt it was developed too quickly. Later in the film, Constance is kidnapped. In order to save her, D’Artagnan pretends to fall in love with Countess de Winter. However, after his initial meeting with the Countess, D’Artagnan tells Athos how much he loves her. If D’Artagnan was romantically interested in Constance, why would he even bother having feelings for the Countess? That part of the story was confusing.

A weaker villain: There are two villains in The Three Musketeers; Countess de Winter and Richelieu. But one of them definitely outshined the other. Countess de Winter was the stronger villain. She is a criminal by legal context and the audience can witness her committing several crimes. Richelieu, on the other hand, is not presented in the same way. The audience does see him commit a crime of theft, but it is never explained how this was done. Richelieu was also friends with the King of France, a character that was not written or portrayed as a villain. This made me puzzled as to what Richelieu’s true intentions were, whether he was a villain or simply a man who follows his own rules.

The Musketeers spending little time together: When you think of The Three Musketeers, you think of these heroes fighting alongside each other and saving the day together. As I watched this film, I noticed how they spent more time apart. I was disappointed to discover this because that team dynamic the Musketeers are known for had a limited presence. While this separation did allow the audience to get to know these characters individually, we didn’t really get to see this group of friends grow over time. Though there was a lot of content in this movie, I wish more time was given to show the Musketeers together.

Castle photo created by Photoangel at freepik.com. <a href=’https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/old-castle-in-the-mountians_1286237.htm’>Designed by Freepik</a>. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/tree”>Tree image created by Photoangel – Freepik.com</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

My overall impression:

Anchors Aweigh was the best movie I saw in 2020. This was a pleasant surprise, as I never expected one of Gene Kelly’s films to receive this honor. Even though it’s only April, the 1948 adaptation of The Three Musketeers has now become the best movie I’ve seen so far! There is so much effort that was put into this project, which is reflected in many parts. The costumes and set designs were impressive because of the detail that was incorporated into them. Many good acting performances can be found, making it difficult to choose the best one. These actors not only did a good job individually, but they also worked well together as a group! Similar to what I said in my Oliver! review, I might read The Three Musketeers because of how much I enjoyed its film adaptation! For now, my top priority is reading the books that are currently on my TBR shelf.

Overall score: 8 out of 10

Have you read or seen The Three Musketeers? What adaptations of classic literature do you like? Please let me know in the comment section!

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen