Worse perhaps than all of that, the storyline is nearly impossible to follow. The scenes seem chosen at random — shuffled by distant memory, filmed and acted just as hazily, with any sort of meaning lost along the way. The effect is rather like peering through someone else’s photo album without having any idea who the people are. Exposition is entirely missing. So are their personalities. Cecil Vyse (actor Laurence Fox) pops up, and one has no idea who he is. One has no idea why Lucy would consent to anything he asks. Therefore one is unaffected later when she changes her mind.
As for George (Rafe Spall), “he seems like a stalker,” the person watching with me kept saying. The actor’s choice of staring at Lucy repeatedly and little else, did nothing to cover the gaping holes the script left in George Emerson’s character development. Yet George should be a galvanising figure in the story - the turning point depends upon him. Spall’s George Emerson is so pallid and passive that when he kept telling Lucy “We’re alive!” in what’s meant to be a triumphant moment, I had to wonder, “You are?”
Elaine Cassidy’s Lucy seems peevish and detached throughout the film - she’d have made a better Charlotte. And Charlotte - we’re supposed to feel a bit annoyed watching Charlotte perhaps, but not because of Sophie Thompson’s acting choices. It’s hard to say whether the strange choices made by actors who have proven quite able in prior work is due to direction. All we see is what is viewable. I say viewable, because another problem with this adaptation is that most of the dialogue is nearly impossible to decipher. It isn’t the accents - it’s that the actors mumble, swallow, and whisper their dialogue to the point you want to throw something at the screen. Sophie Thompson’s Charlotte is the worst culprit of all in that regard. Perhaps it was the actor’s or director’s choice to make Charlotte’s repression so complete that she swallowed all attempts to speak. If so, a bit more art is required. We can’t follow the story if we can’t understand what she is saying. But Thompson is not the only guilty party. At times the stuttering and whispering and air-swallowing is so overdone by various actors that the film seems more like a video made of a local, amateur ‘panto’ performance of E. M. Forster’s classic.
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.