|
|
Post by PeterC on Dec 29, 2019 16:13:31 GMT
I think Andy and others have somewhat missed the point about Mark Gatiss. The whole reason Gatiss is busily employed by the BBC is not because his writing is so incisive but because it is so relentlessly PC.
And so, in this this year’s MRJ adaptation what do we get? A feckless (upper-class) judge, a bunch of heartless (English) villagers and a (sensitive) African shepherd - one of the many found in 17th century England (!)
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoig on Dec 30, 2019 3:13:53 GMT
The whole reason Gatiss is busily employed by the BBC is not because his writing is so incisive but because it is so relentlessly PC. MRJ would be horrified. |
|
|
|
Post by ropardoe on Dec 30, 2019 9:10:40 GMT
I think Andy and others have somewhat missed the point about Mark Gatiss. The whole reason Gatiss is busily employed by the BBC is not because his writing is so incisive but because it is so relentlessly PC. And so, in this this year’s MRJ adaptation what do we get? A feckless (upper-class) judge, a bunch of heartless (English) villagers and a (sensitive) African shepherd - one of the many found in 17th century England (!) Trying to stay out of this, but - good grief - there were plenty of black servants/employees in seventeenth century England. I had no problem at all with the black witness in Martin's Close - and the part was beautifully acted. (Edited to say that by "plenty" I mean several thousand - not a huge number in the greater scheme of things, but enough to make the character in Gatiss's adaptation perfectly believable.) |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Dec 30, 2019 13:48:36 GMT
Well the BBC have just managed to produce what looks like from the first of three episodes the worst adaptation of A Christmas Carol. That doesn't raise my hopes over Dracula, though I hope I'm wrong. We'll soon find out. I'm still looking forward to Channel 5's adaptation of Susan Hills' The Little Hand and, of course, the BBC's version of Martin's Close. I didn't bother with A Christmas Carol, another "improvement" that didn't come off from most accounts. On the other hand, the previews for Martin's Close have been positive. It looks like it has more humour but is otherwise faithful to the original. was a good version of an original story that I don't particularly like (I'm currently re-reading M.R. James's originals, but skipped "Martin's Close"). On the other hand (!), The Little Hand was a total loss. It seemed to be immensely extended and might have been better as a 30 minutes version. |
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on Dec 30, 2019 15:28:27 GMT
I didn't bother with A Christmas Carol, another "improvement" that didn't come off from most accounts. On the other hand, the previews for Martin's Close have been positive. It looks like it has more humour but is otherwise faithful to the original. was a good version of an original story that I don't particularly like (I'm currently re-reading M.R. James's originals, but skipped "Martin's Close"). On the other hand (!), The Little Hand was a total loss. It seemed to be immensely extended and might have been better as a 30 minutes version. "It seemed to be immensely extended..." That seems to be the general fault with most TV adaptations these days, Martin's Close being the exception. I agree with you that Martin's Close is one of James's weakest stories. I too have been rereading his stories recently and looked at this in particular to see just how faithful the adaptation would be. Which, to be honest, wasn't bad, though Gatiss didn't have much to work on. It was far from being one of the best Ghost Stories for Christmas, though, alas, it was not one of the worst either! The BBC does seem to have dropped back a lot since the days of Lawrence Gordon Clark, and even he in my opinion never equalled his very first, The Stalls of Barchester. I didn't mind The Little Hand. Granted it was slow but I can cope with that. At least it wasn't polluted with so much of the PC nonsense the BBC feels obliged to serve out to us these days. I agree, it would have benefitted from being shorter, perhaps cut back to an hour or even the half hour you suggest, but we should be thankful it wasn't over-extended to three nights! That habit is sheer over-indulgence and rarely justified - ie The Woman in White, War of the Worlds, A Christmas Carol. I just hope it won't also be the bane of the new Dracula adaptation! |
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on Dec 30, 2019 15:46:35 GMT
I think Andy and others have somewhat missed the point about Mark Gatiss. The whole reason Gatiss is busily employed by the BBC is not because his writing is so incisive but because it is so relentlessly PC. And so, in this this year’s MRJ adaptation what do we get? A feckless (upper-class) judge, a bunch of heartless (English) villagers and a (sensitive) African shepherd - one of the many found in 17th century England (!) Trying to stay out of this, but - good grief - there were plenty of black servants/employees in seventeenth century England. I had no problem at all with the black witness in Martin's Close - and the part was beautifully acted. (Edited to say that by "plenty" I mean several thousand - not a huge number in the greater scheme of things, but enough to make the character in Gatiss's adaptation perfectly believable.) I understand where peterc is coming from. Yes, there would have been perhaps a few thousand black people in Britain then, but surely almost predominantly in cities like London, Liverpool and Bristol. I wouldn't imagine there being that many in the countryside, especially working as shepherds. That does seem unlikely. But, the main point I believe peterc was making was that he is the only "sensitive" character amongst a rabble of "heartless" villagers and a "feckless upper-class" judge, hence the PC charge. Actually, I think Gatiss made a more than fair stab at what is after all one of James's weakest ghost stories. It was never likely to be turned into a classic , but I understand he was also hampered by a very tight budget by the BBC. (Perhaps they had already overspent on the overbloated Christmas Carol and the upcoming Dracula!) |
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Dec 30, 2019 18:47:24 GMT
I agree, it would have benefitted from being shorter, perhaps cut back to an hour or even the half hour you suggest, but we should be thankful it wasn't over-extended to three nights! That habit is sheer over-indulgence and rarely justified - ie The Woman in White, War of the Worlds, A Christmas Carol. Interesting. In the early 70s in German television, which at the time were just two major national channels, long and rambling literature adaptions for christmas were hugely succesful. There was Treasure Island, 340 minutes in 4 parts, and The Woman in White, 255 minutes in 3 parts. I only have a hazy recollection of The Woman in White which I saw as kid - some scenes stuck like the theft of the diamond in India- but I never re-watched it or read Wilkie Collins (outside of Dan Simmons' novel Drood), but Treasure Island still is surprisingly good. The long adaption seems to be universal. (The only original literature adaption produced today are dull crime tv movies of dull crime novels which supposedly sold. The classics are dead. On the other hand, nobody can beat British period pieces.) Inspired by the discussion I watch most of those James adaptions over the weekend and some of Gatiss' horror docus. I liked The Stalls of Barchester and A Warning to the Curious a lot, A View from the Hill was so-so, while The Ash-Tree was dull. |
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Dec 30, 2019 19:55:38 GMT
I only have a hazy recollection of The Woman in White which I saw as kid - some scenes stuck like the theft of the diamond in India That would be THE MOONSTONE, not THE WOMAN IN WHITE. But you, and everybody else, should really read Collins. Nothing is quite as entertaining as Collins on top form. THE WOMAN IN WHITE, for example, among its many delights contains a clever literary device that will make your hair stand on end. At least if you are of a nervous disposition. |
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Dec 31, 2019 11:38:39 GMT
The only story by Collins I have, but have not yet read, is "Mad Monkton" in The Fourth Fontana Book of Great Ghost Stories. I once opened it at random, and believe there was a corpse crawling with maggots. A gothic image, and I was quite impressed.
|
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Dec 31, 2019 19:13:49 GMT
I only have a hazy recollection of The Woman in White which I saw as kid - some scenes stuck like the theft of the diamond in India That would be THE MOONSTONE, not THE WOMAN IN WHITE. But you, and everybody else, should really read Collins. Nothing is quite as entertaining as Collins on top form. THE WOMAN IN WHITE, for example, among its many delights contains a clever literary device that will make your hair stand on end. At least if you are of a nervous disposition. THE MOONSTONE was also filmed at the time. I forgot. These kind of adaptions were really popular back then. They also did a Dostojewskl. I liked Simmons Drood a lot. The story sure was far-fetched, but there was a lot about Collins and Dickens, and the pulpier elements of Londons underworld at the time were fun. It kind of interested me enough to seek some bios of both writers, learn if the bitter rivalry presented in the novel was grounded in fact. But I never came to it. Nah, no nervous disposition here. (Only if I watch the news.) I have read too much in life. It is hard to become excited any longer. |
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Dec 31, 2019 21:24:17 GMT
Nah, no nervous disposition here. (Only if I watch the news.) I have read too much in life. It is hard to become excited any longer. Jaded, huh? What if I were to mention that I am typing this from inside your house? |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Jan 2, 2020 13:37:01 GMT
Martin's Close was a good version of an original story that I don't particularly like (I'm currently re-reading M.R. James's originals, but skipped "Martin's Close"). On the other hand (!), The Little Hand was a total loss. It seemed to be immensely extended and might have been better as a 30 minutes version. "It seemed to be immensely extended..." That seems to be the general fault with most TV adaptations these days, Martin's Close being the exception. I agree with you that Martin's Close is one of James's weakest stories. I too have been rereading his stories recently and looked at this in particular to see just how faithful the adaptation would be. Which, to be honest, wasn't bad, though Gatiss didn't have much to work on. It was far from being one of the best Ghost Stories for Christmas, though, alas, it was not one of the worst either! The BBC does seem to have dropped back a lot since the days of Lawrence Gordon Clark, and even he in my opinion never equalled his very first, The Stalls of Barchester. I didn't mind The Little Hand. Granted it was slow but I can cope with that. At least it wasn't polluted with so much of the PC nonsense the BBC feels obliged to serve out to us these days. I agree, it would have benefitted from being shorter, perhaps cut back to an hour or even the half hour you suggest, but we should be thankful it wasn't over-extended to three nights! That habit is sheer over-indulgence and rarely justified - ie The Woman in White, War of the Worlds, A Christmas Carol. I just hope it won't also be the bane of the new Dracula adaptation! The first episode of Dracula was misconceived on many levels. For every good idea (the flashback structure), there is a bad one (the vampire baby). In any event I will keep watching it. Tonight's episode features a Lord Ruthven, the name of the title character from "The Vampyre" (1816), probably an in-joke from Mark Gatiss. To give him his due, his version of "The Tractacte Middoth" is an okay version of an okay original and his "Martin's Close" may well be better developed than the original. I still would like to see his long-planned version of "Count Magnus" that, if Dracula gets good ratings, is more likely to be filmed. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Jan 2, 2020 13:46:39 GMT
Nah, no nervous disposition here. (Only if I watch the news.) I have read too much in life. It is hard to become excited any longer. Jaded, huh? What if I were to mention that I am typing this from inside your house? |
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Jan 2, 2020 16:16:47 GMT
Jaded, huh? What if I were to mention that I am typing this from inside your house? Yikes! |
|
|
|
Post by fritzmaitland on Jan 3, 2020 13:16:09 GMT
The first episode of Dracula was misconceived on many levels. For every good idea (the flashback structure), there is a bad one (the vampire baby). In any event I will keep watching it. Tonight's episode features a Lord Ruthven, the name of the title character from "The Vampyre" (1816), probably an in-joke from Mark Gatiss. To give him his due, his version of "The Tractacte Middoth" is an okay version of an okay original and his "Martin's Close" may well be better developed than the original. I still would like to see his long-planned version of "Count Magnus" that, if Dracula gets good ratings, is more likely to be filmed. Crikey. This Dracula is getting more 'king mad by the minute. But nice to see a Devil Rides Out homage during episode two. I enjoyed Martin's Close, The War Of The Worlds, The Turn Of The Screw (2009), "Susan Hill's Ghost Story"(sic), some of A Christmas Carol, Worzel Gummidge and am sort of enthralled by Dracula. Haven't watched so much telly in ages. Hats off to the Beeb. And (I suppose) Channel 5. |
|
