Lejink

I didn't know of this film at all until I watched "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" starring Michael Caine and Steve Martin and learned it was a remake of this Marlon Brando and David Niven double-header from the 60's. Not only that, apart from a different ending, the two features are almost identical.

When it comes to my taste in music and movies, I'm something of a "the original is always best" snob, for instance give me the Mitchum and Peck version of "Cape Fear" over Scorsese's pumped up 80's revamp starring De Niro and Nolte. That's my verdict here too. While Caine does a decent job in "Scoundrels" approximating the gentlemanly breeding of his princely, caddish Lawrence Jamieson character, Niven, with his natural class, absolutely nails the tricky-toff part, while I'm afraid it's another mismatch between Martin and Marlon, just as Steve, whose comedy I do have a soft spot for, is no lady-killer compared to Brando as the more low-rent Freddy Benson.

Directed with verve by TV director Ralph Levy, there's great chemistry between these two stars from very different eras. The succession of looks on each of their faces as they play out their relentless game of oneupmanship is a delight to see. Shirley Jones, of all people, eventually becomes their battleground but doesn't get to stray too much from her prim and proper screen image.

In addition to all this, I loved the twists and turns of the story, the sharp dialogue and the exotic locations. There are amusing scenes a-plenty, like Brando in his vest poking fun at his Stanley Kowalski role from "A Streetcar Named Desire", Niven surprise-announcing himself as the doctor who can cure Freddy's paralysis and especially when he whacks his rival with a cane to test out his ailment.

Yes the film reflects the somewhat demeaning attitude of the time towards women but that said, my only other disappointment really, was that I wish I'd seen this before "Scoundrels", so that I could have appreciated what I was seeing at first hand, without being able to second guess the self-same gags and set-ups.

Not coming to Russian State Television anytime soon, I'd imagine, this four-part ITV drama convincingly and realistically retold the events surrounding the 2006 death by poisonising in London of the recently naturalised British citizen, one-time KGB commander Alexander "Sasha" Litvinenko.

Litvinenko had just written and published in the UK a tell-all book deeply embarrassing to his former paymasters about the heinous acts he was ordered to commit for the fatherland and clearly was seen as a danger to his former homeland, requiring his permanent removal from the scene. Lured into a meeting with two former visiting ex-colleagues at a London city centre hotel, he unwittingly drank tea laced with polonium, we're told the most dangerous substance on earth, a man-made toxin manufactured exclusively in Russia. After ingesting the radioactive material, he took ill almost immediately and died an agonisingly painful death, but not before giving an explosive interview to two investigating police officers in which he publicly named Russian President Putin as his murderer.

The programme then follows the dogged efforts of the British police, under the command of DSU Clive Timmons, to uncover the truth and do justice to Litvinenko and his surviving wife and son, no easy task of course, given the obfuscation and dirty tricks put up by their Russian conterparts as well as negotiating the delicate political ramifications of offending and then poking the Russian bear.

I found this to be a most compelling production, from the chillingly accurate recreation of the doomed Litvinenko on his death bed, to the very human connection made to his widow by the investigating officers and taking in the various rings and hoops Timmons and his team had to negotiate, mainly set by the Russians but also the only slightly less obstructive diplomatic restraints at home. Indeed, if I had a complaint at all about the depiction of events, it was that not enough scrutiny was cast on the timorous actions of the British government of the time in not more loudly calling out and taking stronger sanctions against the perpetrators of this outrage carried out on home soil, which of course wasn't the last time Russia attempted to carry out a State-ordered assassination in Britain as witness the later Salisbury poisonings where a British-born woman was actually killed by accidentally coming into contact with the poison brought into our country by assassins.

I watched this very well-made series with a mixture of anger and compassion, as I was no doubt meant to. The ensemble acting was excellent from top to bottom, especially David Tennant's fleeting but convincing portrayal of Litvinenko, Mark Bonnar as the taciturn but laser-focused Timmons, Neil Maskell as DI Brent Hyatt, the initially sceptical police officer first assigned to the case who resolves to see it through and Margarita Levieva who sympathetically plays Litvinenko's widow Marina, who keeps her dignity and fortitude at all times.

Dramatised just enough from the known real events to keep the action at all times credible and yet watchable, this gripping drama was a compulsive watch from beginning to end.

I have about as much fashion sense as I do Spidey-sense, so I didn't even recognise the fashion brand "American Apparel" until I watched this programme, nor had I heard of the company's discredited founder and former chief executive Dov Charney.

Nevertheless, having in the last year watched a couple of shocking, revelatory documentaries on two other apparently predatory high street owners, i.e. Mohammed Al Fayed at Harrods of London and Mike Jeffries of Abercrombie and Fitch, I had to watch this takedown of Charney.

Told with the participation of a number of ex-employees, we see the arrival of this upstart new kid on the retail block with Charney promoting his new anti-designer brand of functional rather than flashy clothing which took off in the early 2000's as the company profits boomed and opened up many stores, both across the States and in different countries around the world. Promoted aggressively by highly suggestive advertising campaigns, the brand connected with a new young audience and looked here to stay.

Charney also appeared to have a different outlook on the manufacture and distribution of his wares, making everything in-house in America and refusing to go for the cheaper outsourcing options available abroad. More than that, he welcomed immigrants into his workforce without discrimination and paid them higher wages than the industry average.

We're told nothing about Charney's beginnings other than that he's of Canadian- American background and naturally he's nowhere interviewed directly by the programme makers, who instead rely on archive video footage, audio-tapes and many, many stock photographs of him to illustrate the story.

It all seemed to be going so well for this disruptive, mould-breaking, innovative new business, shaking up their more established competitors on the high street, but then the 2008 recession hit and bit with Charney recklessly continuing to expand even as consumer demand slumped and the company losses deepened.

The bigger story here, however, is about Charney's own personal behaviour as we learn of his reprehensible personal conduct which at first is presented as being eccentric, with him playing both good cop and bad cop to his employees or walking around his office in the nude but the tone becomes much darker as we learn of the accusations of sexual abuse he carried out on many young women in his employment. Conveniently, however, he had the complainants sign non-disclosure-agreements, which are now being challenged in the court.

All all this combined to his fall as he lost the leadership of his own company, although we learn in the post-titles that he seems to have risen phoenix-like from the flames to another high position in the fashion industry where he presumably still works today.

This documentary lasted under one hour, in contrast to the two others mentioned earlier which each required a number of episodes to fully tell their story. That was the problem here, the story felt rushed, unbalanced and sensationalist.

I got the message that Charney is a weird, unhinged individual with abhorrent sexual predelictions reminiscent of the disgraced, Jeffrey Epstein, but this programme seemed more interested in the individual tales of the flamboyant ex-employee witnesses they lined up for the prosecution.

Nevertheless, if this programme helps the truth to come out and expose another apparent user and abuser of young people to gratify their own depraved needs, all well and good. That said, there will be those who, like me decry this type of tabloid-style trial by television exposé and who similarly think that this particular investigation could have been done with more rigour and more seriousness.