|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 16, 2020 14:11:34 GMT
Theater last night? (Wed., Jan. 15)
What did you think of it? I thought it was a pretty good version of Forster's novel, seems quite faithful, except for one slight cavail on my part; one I intend to keep watching in order to see how it's handled. I won't go into that until/if I hear some opinions from others here who might have seen the first episode--and have a familiarity with the novel, preferably.
Obviously it's apt to be closer to the novel than the 1992 film version, starring Emma Thompson and Anthony Hopkins, if only because of the format, which will allow the full story to be played out in a more expansive way. I found the film version quite good, with the exception of the difference in the way Helen's crisis was handled at the story's climax. It'll be interesting to see if the mini is more faithful to the book in this instance; I'd really like to hear the opinions of other Book Board regulars on this--HE has long been one of my favorite novels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Jan 17, 2020 2:09:05 GMT
I watched it on the BBC last year. It was OK. Not very memorable to be honest. The film was better imo.
I haven’t read the book.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jan 17, 2020 10:26:16 GMT
I didn't know there was a series out. Is it new? I want to see it, if so.
|
|
|
|
Post by wickedkittiesmom on Jan 19, 2020 17:52:01 GMT
Its on past my bedtime but PBS will probably show it at an earlier time in a year or 2, ten I'll watch it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Jan 19, 2020 19:24:47 GMT
Its on past my bedtime but PBS will probably show it at an earlier time in a year or 2, ten I'll watch it. i guess i should buy a tote bag this year! 
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 20, 2020 22:41:42 GMT
Thanks for the replies! For those who know the film and/or the novel, I'd suggest giving this a shot, if you haven't already. My one minor issue with the mini thus far is the casting of the character of Jacky, the quasi-prostitute mistress of Leonard Bast; not so much for the simple fact that, in accordance with the BBC's recent 'casting quotas' decision, the character is being played by a Black woman, but for the idea that this casting might impel the notion that some manner of racial politics will be built into the story that weren't there originally, and that I don't think would fit into Forster's world awfully well (though admittedly A Passage to India turned on just such matters of race and ethnicity). I may be wrong about all of this, and it's too early in the series to tell where Jacky is going yet. Nothing so terribly wrong with racial politics, per se--but can they work in this story, if introduced? Stay tuned and find out...
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 22, 2020 23:25:47 GMT
Thanks for the replies! For those who know the film and/or the novel, I'd suggest giving this a shot, if you haven't already. My one minor issue with the mini thus far is the casting of the character of Jacky, the quasi-prostitute mistress of Leonard Bast; not so much for the simple fact that, in accordance with the BBC's recent 'casting quotas' decision, the character is being played by a Black woman, but for the idea that this casting might impel the notion that some manner of racial politics will be built into the story that weren't there originally, and that I don't think would fit into Forster's world awfully well (though admittedly A Passage to India turned on just such matters of race and ethnicity). I may be wrong about all of this, and it's too early in the series to tell where Jacky is going yet. Nothing so terribly wrong with racial politics, per se--but can they work in this story, if introduced? Stay tuned and find out... This is just color blind casting, as though it doesn't make a difference, when I'm sorry, but it does. This is now typical of lefty virtue signalling, who don't think in terms of period and time context and the source of the material. They are treating the audience with contempt and insulting the viewers intelligence. It is an implicit prostitute role anyway, so wouldn't that be somewhat insulting to the actress herself? Why not cast her in the role of Helen instead. The father could have gone wayward like Henry Wilcox.
A Passage To India, I haven't read Forster's books only seen the films, can't be anything but racially motivated, due to the thematic presentation of the story. Perhaps if they remake this as a mini-series, they can cast some Mexican actors in the Indian roles to make up the 'quota' decision. Or if they remake Maurice, make Scudder a Chinese immigrant worker. Now I am really mad.....  What I found troubling in particular was the seeming switchover of Jacky's essential character: in the novel, she's a sadsack of sorts, an uneducated and needy member of the lower classes who begins by being something of a figure of fun to both of the Schlegel sisters, and gradually assumes more tragic dimensions as her past relationship to the Wilcoxes is made known. In the teleplay she's now being treated as a 'dignified Black woman' (even her cockney accent has been largely erased) who clearly cannot be presented in the same manner as Forster's original conception of the character, for fear of injuring modern sensibilities--and I suspect her plight is going to be turned to suggest not merely one of socio-economic exploitation, but one of racial exploitation as well. That's not a negligible theme, but it's not a theme of the novel, and I somehow think it's not going to make for a comfortable fit. I don't understand why an original screenplay dealing with the issues women of color faced in Britain in the early part of the twentieth century can't be commissioned and produced--this could surely make a fascinating story on its own--rather than attempting to shoehorn it into a story that wasn't conceived to support it, in order to justify a casting quota rule that appears to be somewhat silly and ill-conceived to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 27, 2020 20:49:39 GMT
What I found troubling in particular was the seeming switchover of Jacky's essential character: in the novel, she's a sadsack of sorts, an uneducated and needy member of the lower classes who begins by being something of a figure of fun to both of the Schlegel sisters, and gradually assumes more tragic dimensions as her past relationship to the Wilcoxes is made known. In the teleplay she's now being treated as a 'dignified Black woman' (even her cockney accent has been largely erased) who clearly cannot be presented in the same manner as Forster's original conception of the character, for fear of injuring modern sensibilities--and I suspect her plight is going to be turned to suggest not merely one of socio-economic exploitation, but one of racial exploitation as well. That's not a negligible theme, but it's not a theme of the novel, and I somehow think it's not going to make for a comfortable fit. I don't understand why an original screenplay dealing with the issues women of color faced in Britain in the early part of the twentieth century can't be commissioned and produced--this could surely make a fascinating story on its own--rather than attempting to shoehorn it into a story that wasn't conceived to support it, in order to justify a casting quota rule that appears to be somewhat silly and ill-conceived to begin with. A good friend of mine said she found the mini-series a bit dry. She wasn't too impressed with the representation of Jacky's character either as she has read the book a couple of times and seen the film umpteen times like me. Her expression to me was that Forster wrote her as thick, she didn't understand anything and was just a bimbo. I myself see Jacky as representative of the antecedence of English working class culture and where many of these "white" working class woman were at that time. Many didn't even want to attempt to improve upon their situation and I can see that in my own lineage of working class females, down from my mother, to my grandmother, to my great grandmother, who were just living needy for security with men in their lives. Not an issue with that, but no genuine growth, self-worth and about a comfort zone first and foremost under the guise of males. Jacky Bast's character IS NOT about trying to find dignity of race as a minority in Edwardian England.
That is the problem with today, they can't do something original and if they did write and film something like you suggested, they are then probably feeling that what audience demographic will really be interested in watching it for ratings. Lets just bastardize classic literature to make the point instead..... All too true, and an awful case in point is the new adaptation of the Jane Austen fragment 'Sanditon' on PBS. Strangely enough it's adapted by Andrew Davies, whose work I generally admire. But in this case there is very little Austen and very much PC posturing, rather along the lines of the dreadful Patricia Rozema version of Mansfield Park from a few years back...
|
|
