TV Review: Masterpiece Classics - "A Room With A View"

Author: BrandyPublished: Apr 15, 2008 at 12:52 pm 5 comments

A Room With A View. Expansiveness is suggested even in the title of late British novelist E.M. Forster’s work. The title brings imaginings of romance, of possibility, of new beginnings. In the original story, young Englishwoman Lucy Honeychurch travels abroad chaperoned by her dotty older cousin Charlotte. Lucy meets a collection of personalities and experiences so strikingly new, it changes Lucy’s life and future.

Many first met Forster's story and characters in a 1985 cinema adaptation. The cinema version upheld the original story and was loyal to its underlying message: hope lies within, so follow your heart. It seems unfair to draw comparisons between this 2007 PBS Masterpiece Classic TV film version, and the 1985 Merchant-Ivory film; but one feels safe expecting some semblance of Forster’s original story.

Unfortunately, that expectation is dashed in this reworked retelling. Rather than the expansiveness of young love and a new beginning, rather than the imaginative tour of Tuscany and “the young girl transfigured” there, one is greeted with the limitations and fragmentations of memory, and a solemn procession through regret. Is this E.M. Forster’s intended story?

No, indeed. And before I begin to complain and explain, let me say I am not completely opposed to reworking great works of art. Shakespeare’s plays have been told in so many languages, modes of dress, and with so many viewpoints and emphases one cannot count the 're-visions'. Historical tales have also had dates, locations, and so forth fudged a bit in a storyline for expediency or entertainment's sake. One can forgive such stylistic changes, as long as the basic tale is unravaged.

I tried, but I just could not forgive what’s been done to Forster’s classic here. The film itself seems amateurish — badly cast, badly written, badly acted. Only the cinematography acquits itself; it accomplishes the hazy quality of memories long past, which this telling requires. The scriptwriter has employed a framing device in which the story’s heroine, Lucy, arrives at the same pensione where she met her husband years before. The film then jumps back and forth between her ‘current’ stay post-World War I, and her original stay in the same room ten years prior. I don’t normally mind a framing device; neither do I object to a story being told via flashbacks. It isn’t the method but the art (or lack) of it. Whichever device a work uses it should fit the story and have the desired emotional impact. In this case, the story itself is so fragmented as to be nearly impossible to follow; the desired emotional impact is a mystery. I feel fairly certain that confusion, frustration, and boredom were not among the emotional responses the filmmakers wished from their viewers.

Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2Page 3Page 4

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

Article comments

  • 1 - katie

    Apr 15, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    While it wasn't what I expected I didn't think it was all that bad. I do have to admit though that it has been so long since I've read the book that I can't really compare the two. Taken on it's own this version is worth watching at least once, if only to turn the viewer on to the book.

  • 2 - Josh Lasser

    Apr 16, 2008 at 12:50 am

    Congratulations! This article has been selected for syndication to the Advance family of websites and to Boston.com, which will allow even more readers to enjoy it.

  • 3 - bliffle

    Apr 16, 2008 at 12:48 pm

    Having neither read the book or seen the 1985 movie I actually rather enjoyed this TV program. I, too, was bothered by the acting and the actors and the disjointed nature of the presentation.

    I'm guessing that the strength of Forsters writing carried through in spite of the shortcomings of the TV play, so I'm going to screen the 1985 movie in a couple days and see what I think then.

    Anyway, the TV show has piqued my interest in the story, so that's a good thing.

  • 4 - Fan of the original film

    Apr 17, 2008 at 11:14 am

    I agree, this was an appalling version. No one seems to have remarked that the George character in this film was completely miscast. He seems merely like a confused, selfish, insensitive clod--one simply can't sympathize with him.

    And yes, the new ending was completely unnecessary.

  • 5 - kathy

    May 06, 2008 at 11:20 am

    Brandy review is right on. I was appalled. I stayed up late after viewing this to re-read the novel because I could not believe what had been done--especially the ending. Am glad others will be looking at the movie again, it is a classic with a lovely screenplay.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Nov 12, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for October

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs