Jane Seymour headlines this TV adaptation of John Steinbeck's East Of Eden, which chronicles the lives of two families and how Jane Seymour, Timothy Bottoms, and Bruce Boxleitner became who they are. (The prior James Dean movie only covers Part III of this.) I saw this last week and should have written this when it was fresh.
It is, as other reviewers say, storytelling at its best. But my main critique of the whole thing is that, as soap opera-ish as it is in its extreme examples of characters and all their mistakes they make and how manipulative Jane is, it also tries to be so biblical, symbolic, and/or self-important at the same time.
I read somewhere that Timothy Bottoms is probably the most talented of the three Bottoms actors/brothers. But his character (the lead and the one we should feel the most sympathy for) completed turned me off. His character is such a goody-goody, he's bland and one-dimensional. And, he always had a pained expression on his face, when trouble hit. And, you could always predict what he would do or how he would react in any given situation, like near the end about that money. He tends to take the high road, but in a way, that's off-putting and it doesn't feel noble at the time, but only like he's being a jerk. When not pained, he gives off an air of superiority. It's almost as if he's so consumed with self, that he didn't know how to relate or really talk to people in a real way. That's another thing: there was never any communication, at all. There was one good scene between him and Sam in the third part at the kitchen table. But other that, there was nothing real here.
I did feel for him to a degree when Jane was so blatantly awful to him, but his persistent blindness to her evil side and his obstinate love for her makes his character so unrealistic. I know there are people like him, but most men today would have left her a long time ago. It's like he's a sucker for punishment. The only other time I felt for his situation was when he and brother Bruce Boxleitner were trying to win their dad's approval and when Bruce beat him up.
Maybe all these mannerisms were the actor's interpretation of the character and it wasn't just bad acting and/or overacting, but, on the whole, his character just wasn't that relate-able.
Sam Bottoms, as his supposed son, is much more interesting and well developed. The big and talented supporting cast helps to move things along: Warren Oates (who was especially good as their father,) Howard Duff, Anne Baxter, Lloyd Bridges, Richard Masur, and Karen Allen. But, Jane's character is so evil and down right bad that it tends to make it hard to watch. Sam Bottoms and Karen Allen bring some much needed fresh air in the third part. But, this definitely makes me want to see the James Dean version.
I know I'll be in the minority, bashing Timothy and/or his character and the overall unpleasantness of it and its trying to be so self-important, but that was my immediate reaction to it, and a week later I still have it. I had seen it twice before: when it came out in 1981 and I was much younger (so that doesn't really count), and eight years ago. Maybe, I'll be in the mood for it in another eight years.
It is, as other reviewers say, storytelling at its best. But my main critique of the whole thing is that, as soap opera-ish as it is in its extreme examples of characters and all their mistakes they make and how manipulative Jane is, it also tries to be so biblical, symbolic, and/or self-important at the same time.
I read somewhere that Timothy Bottoms is probably the most talented of the three Bottoms actors/brothers. But his character (the lead and the one we should feel the most sympathy for) completed turned me off. His character is such a goody-goody, he's bland and one-dimensional. And, he always had a pained expression on his face, when trouble hit. And, you could always predict what he would do or how he would react in any given situation, like near the end about that money. He tends to take the high road, but in a way, that's off-putting and it doesn't feel noble at the time, but only like he's being a jerk. When not pained, he gives off an air of superiority. It's almost as if he's so consumed with self, that he didn't know how to relate or really talk to people in a real way. That's another thing: there was never any communication, at all. There was one good scene between him and Sam in the third part at the kitchen table. But other that, there was nothing real here.
I did feel for him to a degree when Jane was so blatantly awful to him, but his persistent blindness to her evil side and his obstinate love for her makes his character so unrealistic. I know there are people like him, but most men today would have left her a long time ago. It's like he's a sucker for punishment. The only other time I felt for his situation was when he and brother Bruce Boxleitner were trying to win their dad's approval and when Bruce beat him up.
Maybe all these mannerisms were the actor's interpretation of the character and it wasn't just bad acting and/or overacting, but, on the whole, his character just wasn't that relate-able.
Sam Bottoms, as his supposed son, is much more interesting and well developed. The big and talented supporting cast helps to move things along: Warren Oates (who was especially good as their father,) Howard Duff, Anne Baxter, Lloyd Bridges, Richard Masur, and Karen Allen. But, Jane's character is so evil and down right bad that it tends to make it hard to watch. Sam Bottoms and Karen Allen bring some much needed fresh air in the third part. But, this definitely makes me want to see the James Dean version.
I know I'll be in the minority, bashing Timothy and/or his character and the overall unpleasantness of it and its trying to be so self-important, but that was my immediate reaction to it, and a week later I still have it. I had seen it twice before: when it came out in 1981 and I was much younger (so that doesn't really count), and eight years ago. Maybe, I'll be in the mood for it in another eight years.