E.M. Forster’s novel A Room with a View was thought to be the most hopeful and optimistic of all his works. It was also the most popular in its day. Who could not identify with Lucy, the young woman who 'found herself' in her first love and resisted the pressures of society and family to stay loyal to her own heart? In the novel's seemingly simple story, Forster slipped subtle signals to his reader to do the same — to thine own self be true. Lucy is rewarded in the novel and in the Merchant-Ivory film for following her heart above all else.
I wanted to take that journey with her again here. It’s unfair to compare this version to the lush cinema version, but it is fair to expect the confines of the story be kept. The manner may differ, the players may differ, and all is well; but the tale should be recognisable. If the screenwriter (Andrew Davies) wished to write a sequel, a new ‘slant’ on the story would be understandable - the characters would have been borrowed, but the story would have been his.
Instead, Davies 'reworked' the original. He presented it using the same title, characters and dialogue. He simply bookended it with his own scenes, changing the story in so doing. He does borrow heavily from the novel; but it's as if a magnificent ship were crunched and twisted and scattered across the ocean floor. Can we make sense of the wreckage such as we find it? Or are the parts unrecognisable even in their new configuration?
Whole scenes are shoplifted from the original work, but their original meaning is lost entirely in their new context. Not only that, but the absence of a point of view makes emotional impact impossible. There is no story arc here, no emotional crescendo. No center. We are left unsure what's going on, let alone how to feel about it. The fictional characters seem to feel the same. Characters appear here and there but the motivation for movement has been lost. This is a movie purportedly about passion in which no passion can be found.
Article comments
1 - katie
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
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
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
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
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.