strange_complex (
strange_complex) wrote2007-11-04 11:40 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Entry tags:
21. A Room With A View (2007, made for TV), dir. Nicholas Renton
IMDb page here.
Just a quick write-up of this before I go to bed.
The trailers promised a 'fresh look' at Forster's novel, and to a degree this was true. Mr. Beebe was played as explicitly gay (well, as explicitly gay as anyone can be in Edwardian England), which I don't think is true of his character in the 1985 version with Helena Bonham-Carter. And actually Elaine Carter rather outshone the latter as Lucy Honeychurch. Somehow, when characters around her said how wonderful she was, and how exciting it would be for everybody when she at last began to live, it was actually quite believable in her case. She played her many confusions very convincingly, and her piano more truly passionately, whereas Helena Bonham-Carter sometimes came across as simply petulant. In fact, now I come to think of it, the portrayals of Cecil Vyse, George Emerson and Mr. Emerson were all profoundly human and believable, too - and if Sinéad Cusack annoyed me as Eleanor Lavish, and Sophie Thompson as Charlotte Bartlett, that probably just shows they were doing their jobs well, as those characters are supposed to be annoying.
But something was lacking, and I suspect it was the subtle artifice of Forster's novel. His characters are beautifully delineated, and his plot smooth yet inevitable. You couldn't call either of them unrealistic. But each character stands for something specific, as does each place, and what's being played out isn't entirely a drama between individuals but a drama between attitudes and ideas. And that felt lost in this production - especially given the rather bizarre ending they tagged onto it. Far from the story coming full circle, so that Lucy and George offer their rooms with a view to another young girl on the brink of self-discovery, we see a few brief and steamy sex scenes between the two of them, then him lying dead in a First World War bomb-crater, and finally her returning to Florence to take up with the Italian carriage-driver who had propelled her into the arms of George Emerson in the first place. I'm sure it's a very literal representation of Lucy's emancipation. But it doesn't convey the sense that her story is only representative of a wider, continuous truth that Forster's ending does.
I'm also sorry that, by forswearing the captions used in the 1985 film, my favourite chapter heading from the entire book (which practically tells the whole story in itself) did not appear on screen:

Just a quick write-up of this before I go to bed.
The trailers promised a 'fresh look' at Forster's novel, and to a degree this was true. Mr. Beebe was played as explicitly gay (well, as explicitly gay as anyone can be in Edwardian England), which I don't think is true of his character in the 1985 version with Helena Bonham-Carter. And actually Elaine Carter rather outshone the latter as Lucy Honeychurch. Somehow, when characters around her said how wonderful she was, and how exciting it would be for everybody when she at last began to live, it was actually quite believable in her case. She played her many confusions very convincingly, and her piano more truly passionately, whereas Helena Bonham-Carter sometimes came across as simply petulant. In fact, now I come to think of it, the portrayals of Cecil Vyse, George Emerson and Mr. Emerson were all profoundly human and believable, too - and if Sinéad Cusack annoyed me as Eleanor Lavish, and Sophie Thompson as Charlotte Bartlett, that probably just shows they were doing their jobs well, as those characters are supposed to be annoying.
But something was lacking, and I suspect it was the subtle artifice of Forster's novel. His characters are beautifully delineated, and his plot smooth yet inevitable. You couldn't call either of them unrealistic. But each character stands for something specific, as does each place, and what's being played out isn't entirely a drama between individuals but a drama between attitudes and ideas. And that felt lost in this production - especially given the rather bizarre ending they tagged onto it. Far from the story coming full circle, so that Lucy and George offer their rooms with a view to another young girl on the brink of self-discovery, we see a few brief and steamy sex scenes between the two of them, then him lying dead in a First World War bomb-crater, and finally her returning to Florence to take up with the Italian carriage-driver who had propelled her into the arms of George Emerson in the first place. I'm sure it's a very literal representation of Lucy's emancipation. But it doesn't convey the sense that her story is only representative of a wider, continuous truth that Forster's ending does.
I'm also sorry that, by forswearing the captions used in the 1985 film, my favourite chapter heading from the entire book (which practically tells the whole story in itself) did not appear on screen:
"The Reverend Arthur Beebe, the Reverend Cuthbert Eager, Mr. Emerson, Mr. George Emerson, Miss Eleanor Lavish, Miss Charlotte Bartlett, and Miss Lucy Honeychurch Drive Out in Carriages to See a View; Italians Drive Them."A worthy use of an evening, but what it's really made me do is want to read the book again. Which just ain't possible right now with so many other things queuing up to be read.

no subject
*Is glad she missed it*
no subject
Ah, good point - had forgotten about that. I'm pretty sure I've read it at some point, but can't remember its contents now. Must look it out and see if I have it somewhere at home.
The alternate ending also involved hitting the viewer over the head with the Italian carriage-driver's 'confusion' when Lucy asks to be directed to the uomini boni and he takes her to George, rather than the priests as she'd meant. She meets him again, and calls him on it, and he states explicitly that he knew perfectly well what she meant, but thought she had more need to be taken to George. IN CASE YOU HAD MISSED THAT, YO!
And they missed out another of my favourite lines, when Lucy tries to explain to her mother that Cecil despises ugly things, not people, and her mother asks, "Is it a thing or a person when Freddy plays comic songs on the piano?"
In fact, I think I was altogether too kind to this production when I reviewed it last night!
no subject
Mind you - I suppose it was on ITV :)
Although the really cute guy who played George Emercon was in another play on BBC3 or 4 last week about the lady Chatterley's Lover trial. He's good at the old sex scenes that guy - it has to be said.
I think I might be developing somewhat of a crush on him.
no subject
I am crushing on son of Spall!
no subject
I love the way they played the parts of a father and son, though. Thought that was really nice.
no subject
although i DO have a history of inappropriate/weird crushes. (See also Keanu Reeves)
no subject
no subject
like john cusack for example
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Yeah, that was true at times, you're quite right. Sometimes I really liked him, and found him less contrived than Julian Sands in the 1985 version. But sometimes, yes - crass is the word. I guess he is quite a hard character to play convincingly as unconventional and yet also appealing.
no subject
arghhh.
no subject
This is a sick joke - yes?
Surely the book ended with L and G occupying the R with a view?
no subject
Afraid not - or at least not on my part. Whether ITV meant it that way or not, I can't say!
no subject
Surely this is sick nonsense!
Surely the book ends with them in the Room With A View oon their honeymoon?
no subject
no subject
You are joking?
I haven't got the book - but I'm sure that you are joking and this doesn't happen!
no subject
no subject
I love the Noel Coward song of the same name, but I don't know if it's connected with the story in any way?
no subject
As for Noel Coward, the book was published in 1908, which I think is well before he began his career. So he certainly had it to reference, and I presume he was. I don't know the song, though, so I can't comment on the content.
no subject
no subject
On balance, I think that was the right call in this case. I was hooked in mainly by the promise of a 'fresh' approach, but I was less than convinced that they'd really managed to create one. I think the 1985 film was so iconic that the story really should have been left alone for something more like another 50 years, not 20. Then it might be time for a fresh look.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
A View Without a Room
Also, I wanted to correct one thing that I read on this page. At the end of the 1985 film, George and Lucy don't give up their view for the young Lucy doppelganger. George merely mentions that they (Lucy and George) have a view. As we can see in the final scene, they are back in their room and it is clear that did not give up their own view.