![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bronze_ribbons. . .Mike Gwilym (played Berowne and Pericles in the BBC TV Shakespeares)?
. . .Richard Morant (played Bunter in the Petherbridge-Walter adaptations of Sayers's Wimsey-Vane novels)?
. . .Paul Hastings (played Francis Getliffe in Strangers and Brothers and Philip Boyes in Strong Poison)?
It's Gwilym I'm particularly curious about -- as someone featured in lead roles back in the 1980s, it seems so odd for Google to net nothing on whether he died or retired or shifted into teaching/writing/...?? It's not really any of my business, of course, but I can't help wondering anyway: he was a fine actor. What the devil became of him?
The other two -- I'm less surprised at the lack of info, since they fall squarely in the miscellaneous supporting cast category. But I'm asking anyway, because crushes are irrational. ;-)
(The second link, incidentally, shows Harriet Walter (a/k/a "Harriet Vane") as Helena. All of this, of course, triggered by the Gaudy Night DVD I finally watched last night. )
As with Have His Carcase, both Walter and Petherbridge rush key lines. I've seen them act well in other productions, so I'm again inclined to fault the director.
I'm fascinated by the producer's choices of what to conflate, add, delete, and repeat (very bizarre use of flashbacks, in my opinion). I'm wondering how much was deliberate -- to shape the story so that it would make sense as a movie -- and how many scenes were cut in order to trim the beast into three one-hour episodes -- some vignettes seem to suggest a payoff that then never materializes (such as Miss Schuster-Slatt holding forth at the Gaudy, but not to Harriet; she doesn't reappear on the river or anywhere else in the television production).
But perhaps no follow-up was ever intended, and that those characters were retained more for atmosphere than for plot advancement (i.e. it's only because I'm so familiar with the novel that I can't help anticipating "missing" scenes). Miss Cattermole is another example. She and Miss Flaxman actually take tea with the rest of the JCR (though not at the same time as each other), but that's all we see of them. On the one hand, it's an economical use of the characters -- three hours isn't enough to include the Cattermole-Pomfret subplots and do them justice, and the other students' lines are rearranged and reassigned nicely. On the other hand, Cattermole's outburst struck me as something that should have led up to a later encounter with Harriet -- but how much of that is me conflating the desperately unhappy country girl of the book with Cameo Featuring Suspiciously Overwrought Potential Suspect.
GN the book is a very talky, packed-with-philosophies novel that happens to have a mystery in it. GN the teleplay is focused on just the mysteries -- that of who's the poison-pen, and whether Harriet will marry Peter. Many of the deletions (and the changes they then make necessary) make sense -- it's hard enough keeping the dons straight, let alone the subplots about the various undergraduates and former classmates and impudent nephews. The ceremony for Warden Browning's portrait is a necessarily economical (and pageant-pretty) way of bringing Peter to Shrewsbury. It would have been unwieldly trying to explain away Harriet's ignorance of the Foreign Office and the First in History. Etc.
But given the need for so many deletions, the additions confuse me all the more -- Peter and Harriet dancing, Harriet being knocked unconscious by the dummy in the chapel, Peter and Bunter in the German train carriage. There are quite a few false notes -- Peter's attack of "beastliness" during their break from dancing is not at all in character; there is insufficient set-up for the exchange about Socrates at the High Table; Miss Pyke would have quoted from the Aeneid in Latin, not English (I realize accommodations have to be made, but it would have been better for Peter to repeat the passage in English as confirmation, or some other such dodge -- and, on the other end of the spectrum, it has always annoyed me that the damned passage isn't translated in the book); Peter would not have gadded about the tent with his hood awry; Harriet's clothes are awful, especially the navy blue chiffon thing with sprigs and ruffles. Etc. On a positive note, the changes kept me off balance enough that I didn't know what to expect, so that there was suspense -- would Harriet suffer two head injuries? Would Miss de Vine have the heart attack? Would Annie spit on Peter?
All of that said, I hadn't been expecting much. I'd glimpsed the very last scene before when it originally aired (Harriet and Peter kissing in broad daylight; Miss Hillyard seeing them and then continuing on; goofy underscoring), and that hadn't sat well with me. It still doesn't. "Dear idiot" is not an adequate substitute to "Placet." But the whole adaptation does very little with the head vs. heart and intellectual-emotional honesty issues that form the core of the book. Perhaps it couldn't. Proper feeling vs. proper job is easier to dramatize; Oxford vs. the world is a more tangible conflict. And with only three hours, it's hard to see how the series could have managed anything more than "Gaudy Lite," as one reviewer dubbed it.
I don't regret watching it -- it's helpful to hear familar lines read differently, and I like thinking through the scriptwriter's choices (even when I don't think they worked). I started rereading the novel again last night, of course, in part to look up all of the favorite passages that didn't make it into the adaptation, such as this one:
It's just as well that didn't get dramatized, but oh, I missed it. There are so many ways one could say (and film) the line, "I am the most blazing fool in Christendom," and have it wring the heart. And so many ways it could fail.
On a trivial note, the actress playing the Dean closely resembles a friend of mine in Houston. Disconcerting but not unpleasant.
On another tangent about acting,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ludimagist offers a Hamlet dream-cast -- that is, the one with Muppets. Hee!
In other news, I spent the bulk of yesterday in a recording studio, singing on a friend's CD. The soloists included Jeannie Gagne and Connye Florance. It was phenomenal watching them at work, and the producer, too -- the sheer amount of talent and experience and know-how in that house yesterday was staggering. And it wasn't just them: the drummer, the pianists, the other ensemble singers -- it was giddy-making, being there. So much to soak up just through listening.
(And, so much more practicing to do. And not just in music. (Ten rejection notices this month. So far. ))
. . .Richard Morant (played Bunter in the Petherbridge-Walter adaptations of Sayers's Wimsey-Vane novels)?
. . .Paul Hastings (played Francis Getliffe in Strangers and Brothers and Philip Boyes in Strong Poison)?
It's Gwilym I'm particularly curious about -- as someone featured in lead roles back in the 1980s, it seems so odd for Google to net nothing on whether he died or retired or shifted into teaching/writing/...?? It's not really any of my business, of course, but I can't help wondering anyway: he was a fine actor. What the devil became of him?
The other two -- I'm less surprised at the lack of info, since they fall squarely in the miscellaneous supporting cast category. But I'm asking anyway, because crushes are irrational. ;-)
(The second link, incidentally, shows Harriet Walter (a/k/a "Harriet Vane") as Helena. All of this, of course, triggered by the Gaudy Night DVD I finally watched last night. )
As with Have His Carcase, both Walter and Petherbridge rush key lines. I've seen them act well in other productions, so I'm again inclined to fault the director.
I'm fascinated by the producer's choices of what to conflate, add, delete, and repeat (very bizarre use of flashbacks, in my opinion). I'm wondering how much was deliberate -- to shape the story so that it would make sense as a movie -- and how many scenes were cut in order to trim the beast into three one-hour episodes -- some vignettes seem to suggest a payoff that then never materializes (such as Miss Schuster-Slatt holding forth at the Gaudy, but not to Harriet; she doesn't reappear on the river or anywhere else in the television production).
But perhaps no follow-up was ever intended, and that those characters were retained more for atmosphere than for plot advancement (i.e. it's only because I'm so familiar with the novel that I can't help anticipating "missing" scenes). Miss Cattermole is another example. She and Miss Flaxman actually take tea with the rest of the JCR (though not at the same time as each other), but that's all we see of them. On the one hand, it's an economical use of the characters -- three hours isn't enough to include the Cattermole-Pomfret subplots and do them justice, and the other students' lines are rearranged and reassigned nicely. On the other hand, Cattermole's outburst struck me as something that should have led up to a later encounter with Harriet -- but how much of that is me conflating the desperately unhappy country girl of the book with Cameo Featuring Suspiciously Overwrought Potential Suspect.
GN the book is a very talky, packed-with-philosophies novel that happens to have a mystery in it. GN the teleplay is focused on just the mysteries -- that of who's the poison-pen, and whether Harriet will marry Peter. Many of the deletions (and the changes they then make necessary) make sense -- it's hard enough keeping the dons straight, let alone the subplots about the various undergraduates and former classmates and impudent nephews. The ceremony for Warden Browning's portrait is a necessarily economical (and pageant-pretty) way of bringing Peter to Shrewsbury. It would have been unwieldly trying to explain away Harriet's ignorance of the Foreign Office and the First in History. Etc.
But given the need for so many deletions, the additions confuse me all the more -- Peter and Harriet dancing, Harriet being knocked unconscious by the dummy in the chapel, Peter and Bunter in the German train carriage. There are quite a few false notes -- Peter's attack of "beastliness" during their break from dancing is not at all in character; there is insufficient set-up for the exchange about Socrates at the High Table; Miss Pyke would have quoted from the Aeneid in Latin, not English (I realize accommodations have to be made, but it would have been better for Peter to repeat the passage in English as confirmation, or some other such dodge -- and, on the other end of the spectrum, it has always annoyed me that the damned passage isn't translated in the book); Peter would not have gadded about the tent with his hood awry; Harriet's clothes are awful, especially the navy blue chiffon thing with sprigs and ruffles. Etc. On a positive note, the changes kept me off balance enough that I didn't know what to expect, so that there was suspense -- would Harriet suffer two head injuries? Would Miss de Vine have the heart attack? Would Annie spit on Peter?
All of that said, I hadn't been expecting much. I'd glimpsed the very last scene before when it originally aired (Harriet and Peter kissing in broad daylight; Miss Hillyard seeing them and then continuing on; goofy underscoring), and that hadn't sat well with me. It still doesn't. "Dear idiot" is not an adequate substitute to "Placet." But the whole adaptation does very little with the head vs. heart and intellectual-emotional honesty issues that form the core of the book. Perhaps it couldn't. Proper feeling vs. proper job is easier to dramatize; Oxford vs. the world is a more tangible conflict. And with only three hours, it's hard to see how the series could have managed anything more than "Gaudy Lite," as one reviewer dubbed it.
I don't regret watching it -- it's helpful to hear familar lines read differently, and I like thinking through the scriptwriter's choices (even when I don't think they worked). I started rereading the novel again last night, of course, in part to look up all of the favorite passages that didn't make it into the adaptation, such as this one:
"Harriet. Do you really prize honesty above every other thing?"
"I think I do. I hope so. Why?"
"If you don't, I am the most blazing fool in Christendom. I am busily engaged in sawing off my own branch. If I am honest, I shall probably lose you altogether. If I am not --"
His voice was curiously rough, as though he were trying to control something; not, she thought, bodily pain or passion, but something more fundamental.
It's just as well that didn't get dramatized, but oh, I missed it. There are so many ways one could say (and film) the line, "I am the most blazing fool in Christendom," and have it wring the heart. And so many ways it could fail.
On a trivial note, the actress playing the Dean closely resembles a friend of mine in Houston. Disconcerting but not unpleasant.
On another tangent about acting,
ludimagist offers a Hamlet dream-cast -- that is, the one with Muppets. Hee! In other news, I spent the bulk of yesterday in a recording studio, singing on a friend's CD. The soloists included Jeannie Gagne and Connye Florance. It was phenomenal watching them at work, and the producer, too -- the sheer amount of talent and experience and know-how in that house yesterday was staggering. And it wasn't just them: the drummer, the pianists, the other ensemble singers -- it was giddy-making, being there. So much to soak up just through listening.
(And, so much more practicing to do. And not just in music. (Ten rejection notices this month. So far. ))
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
25/7/04 18:48 (UTC)Thanks for the link to the Hamlet dream-cast. Fun stuff!
(no subject)
26/7/04 07:57 (UTC)I was genuinely unhappy with that production--certainly it'd be a hard book to film in a three hour adaptation for a lot of reasons, but b/c it was done for Mystery they focused on the mystery aspects, which really aren't important except to underscore the more sweeping themes of the book. I found Petherbridge irritating as Peter--he always seemed drugged to me, although he certainly looks a bit like him--but I will say one thing: he fought to keep what he did. Apparently they made a major hash out of the original script, and he and Walters refused to do it unless they were allowed to try and repair it. Somewhere online there's an interview with him floating about that explains the whole thing. It made for enlightening reading, although it doesn't excuse the ducks, in my opinion ;-)
(no subject)
26/7/04 13:10 (UTC)Thank you for reminding me of Petherbridge's comments (I've a vague memory of reading it eons ago, but since it was eons ago it's very vague). To me, the whole thing has a tone-deaf, made-by-committee-and-then-chopped-to-fit feel to it -- tone-deaf in terms of not showing a real grip on those sweeping themes about tradition, gratitude, balance, possessiveness, and honesty that make the romance and mystery so compelling to begin with. (At least, IMO. I'm thinking of the readers who clearly adore the romance and atmosphere, bless 'em, but can't discuss LP or HV with any sort of academic detachment and stare at one like a smushed meringue the instant one suggests that there are plenty of reasons why any sane woman wouldn't want to marry LP. But that's a snark for another day. . .)
Now that I'm thinking of it, here's the problem: it's a pre-Wilfrid adaptation of a post-Wilfrid book. The bits that hint at world vs. Oxford, proper job vs. proper feeling -- they throw the adaptation out of joint, because they hint at those deep, messy themes that don't fit into the spaces pre-cut by the mystery-romance jigsaw (not to mention the must-make-sense-to-an-80s-audience sandpaper).
Sigh. All of that said, it could have been so much worse -- like the 1940s Busman's Honeymoon, for instance, where the bits I glimpsed didn't merely chew up theme and plot, it fed 'em to the pigs.
Mike Gwilym
10/9/04 13:04 (UTC)Re: Mike Gwilym
11/9/04 22:49 (UTC)mike gwilym
1/1/10 14:16 (UTC)Re: mike gwilym
2/1/10 19:08 (UTC)