|
|
Post by stuyoung on Sept 12, 2010 8:12:21 GMT
This has probably already been discussed but I'll mention it anyway.
"A spine-chilling new single drama has also been commissioned for Christmas on BBC Two, Janice Hadlow revealed.
"Whistle And I'll Come To You, written by Neil Cross, is the thoroughly modern re-working of the evocative Edwardian ghost story "Oh, Whistle and I'll come to You, My Lad" by M.R. James made by BBC Drama Production.
"After the first series of his "gritty-gothic" police thriller Luther, Cross's adaptation delves into themes of ageing, hubris and the supernatural, adding a terrifying psychological twist in the tale to this family hearthside favourite."
|
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on Sept 12, 2010 10:39:13 GMT
I never watched Luther so I have no idea about Neil Cross's abilities as a writer, so I'll approach this adaptation with, hopefully, an open mind. I don't suppose it matters what era this particular story is set in - the plot goes beyond that.
I'll be watching 4 of the classic James adapatations from the 1970s (the original Ghost Stories for Christmas) in a month's time at the Halifax Ghost Festival, which will nicely remind me of what they were like - and give me something to compare this to when it's shown at Christmas.
Fingers crossed it's good, though I'm a bit worried about this "terrifying psychological twist in the tale". Does the original need it?
|
|
|
|
Post by lemming13 on Sept 14, 2010 20:41:14 GMT
Great Old Ones preserve me from thoroughly modern re-working. I don't mind a decent updating, but what the BBC have done along those lines of late years just makes me cringe. Jekyll, for one. Not that Nesbitt was too bad in the role, just that for a supposedly homicidal maniac, Jekyll's total kill score in the entire series was, what - one lion? I know they love a mass audience and actually letting him kill people, rather than having them turn out to have just had a really scary talking-to and gone off to be good people, would have put it back past the watershed, but come on... And how about the pc-version Oliver Twist, complete with black Nancy? I'm sorry, but I won't build up my hopes, I'll just hunt out some bootlegs of the old classics on Youtube and leave the revamped version till I can rent it and not spoil my festive horror.
|
|
|
|
Post by cw67q on Sept 14, 2010 21:34:03 GMT
I'm with Lemming, and the earlier comments 100%. If going for a modern tale, why not take the Gatiss route and come up with a quality script for a new tale?
That said, despite my confidence it would fall flat on its face, I thought the recent Holmes series was excellent, thouroughly enjoyable. Whereas, to be completely honest, I usually enoy the idea of Holmes much more than the actual experience of watching or reading Holmes flavoured items.
- chris
|
|
|
|
Post by lemming13 on Dec 28, 2010 22:40:44 GMT
Just watched the new version on Iplayer. It wasn't as bad as I thought, but it had almost nothing to do with the original; just a character name, a location, and 'this old dude finds something at the seaside that gets him haunted'. Basically the writer had this rather unoriginal story idea about an old man whose wife has dementia, and who is haunted by what turns out to be (SPOILER) her living ghost. Deep psychological subtexts about guilt, the meaning of life and love and the posterity of the childless, blah blah blah. Obviously nobody was buying it so he pretends he's doing a revamp of a great story and bingo, he gets the BBC to fund it. And the director has clearly seen far too many J-horrors. Cliched writing, cliched direction, cliched music, the only thing it really has going for it is John Hurt. They didn't even keep the bloody whistle, for god's sake - he finds a ring. The only way they could keep the slightest relevance with the title was to have Hurt whisper the chorus of the old ballad James took his title from into his wife's ear as he leaves her at the care home. So for my Christmas James I've invested instead in some one man shows by Robert Lloyd Parry on dvd. And   to the BBC. |
|
|
|
Post by lemming13 on Jan 3, 2011 12:48:12 GMT
Robert Lloyd Parry's A Pleasing Terror - bloody joyous. Canon Alberic's Scrapbook and The Mezzotint, delivered with style and real feeling for the material. Watched them by candlelight and relished every moment. More particularly because I happened to have a whisky tumbler at my side which was, curiously, identical to the one Parry swigs from at appropriate moments, and which even more curiously was full of very fine Irish whisky, though not so by the end.  |
|
|
|
Post by khorazin on Jan 3, 2011 14:56:49 GMT
Mmmmm, I’ve mixed feelings about this one.
It terms of direction, cinematography and acting I thought it was for the main part very good-to-excellent, but was it M R James, (of any kind, let alone the title story), well frankly no, the old black and white adaption with Michael Horden is far superior, oh and it kind of went a bit J-horror at the end, which I thought detracted somewhat, still better than 99% of the Christmas fare.
One day maybe my dreams of somebody with a touch of class doing a full period adaption of Count Magnus may be fulfilled, but then again, maybe not….
Back to the audiobook version.
|
|
|
|
Post by lemming13 on Jan 12, 2011 11:13:03 GMT
Robert Lloyd Parry's A Warning to the Curious and Lost Hearts; now those hit the spot. Funny how one man just telling these tales to the audience in a candlelit room can be more impressive and chilling than a prestige, high budget BBC drama production...  |
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on Jan 12, 2011 11:15:35 GMT
Perhaps because he sticks to the original story and doesn't try to tinker with it in some inglorious and vain attempt to improve upon it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Jan 12, 2011 11:42:28 GMT
I didn't see it, but it doesn't seem to have been universally hated and it might have been quite an interesting take on the Jamesian-style tale - I think the biggest mistake might have been the title (and the suggestion that it was a re-telling of James' story) rather than maybe just saying it was "inspired by", or a "tribute to", MRJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarabium on Nov 11, 2011 15:31:33 GMT
I personally think that the director did an okay job given the standard of writing. Some of the night terror scenes were very effective and John Hurt is always watchable.
However, the ending didn't make any sense and showed that the writer was about twenty years behind fashionable horror trends. I groaned when all the suspenseful build up turned into a lazy J-Horror payoff. This is what you get when writers acquire all their knowledge of the horror genre from the silver screen. Oh, how I missed the haunted bedsheet pulled up with wire!
In fact, I hated the whole "wife" subplot. They should have just left it purely supernatural. They changed the original story so much that even the title didn't make sense. Replacing the whistle with a ring? Why?
This is what happens when the BBC tries to be hip and trendy with their re-imaginings. I was half expecting them to set the thing in a block of flats in Islington and have the whistle replaced by a spliff. Then again, perhaps they should have! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by markus1986 on Nov 11, 2011 22:08:08 GMT
I thought it was awful. I think John Hurt is a fantastic actor but I just didn't like it. I agree with you regarding the 'wife' sub-plot. Why they altered the whistle to a ring was idiotic. It should have been called 'Ring and I'll Come to You' I have the Jonathan Miller original 1968 version on DVD and watch it regularly. I don't think I could watch the remake more than the once... |
|
|
|
Post by Shrink Proof on Nov 12, 2011 14:44:03 GMT
Agree. The only time I've ever seen anything featuring John Hurt and wanted to give up & switch off.
|
|
to the BBC.
