First and foremost, I must praise the screenplay by Jack ('I, Claudius') Pulman, which captures James' world so perfectly. James has a remarkably unsentimental view of his characters, presenting his 'heroes' and 'villains' in equally fascinating shades of grey. Beatrix Lehmann and Kathleen ('Black Narcissus') Byron are marvellous as two of the 'good' characters who take no trouble to be liked (cf Rachel Gurney's charming Madame Merle)- perhaps James Maxwell's 'villain' needs to be a little more charming if we are not to take Isabel for a fool. Perhaps also Suzanne Neve is a little opaque as Isabel - but that's almost the point. Richard Chamberlain and Edward Fox are both excellent as her lordly suitor and sickly cousin and benefactor respectively. True, the studio-bound video camerawork looks dated - this was a very early colour production - and I quickly stopped remarking on it. And as a James fan who's sat through numerous glossy film adaptations which got nowhere near his wonderfully ambiguous heart, the reissue of this version on BBC Video is a cause for celebration - I've watched it at least three times, and enjoyed it more each time. Can we now have Pulman's 'The Golden Bowl', please?
11 Reviews
Not what I expected
gcweaver29 January 2005
I just finished this novel last month, and I was expecting BBC to stay very close to the novel. While it played through most of the novel, it left out a KEY scene between two characters that really MAKES the novel and would have MADE the movie. So, I was a bit disappointed.
I did think Richard Chamberlain made a wonderful Ralph. He was so very lovable. I also thought the actress who played Mdme Merle was excellent. Isabel's voice was a bit annoying, but I got used to it with time. She was a beautiful woman. The man cast as Osmond was disappointing to me. I thought John Malkovich in the newer version was much better (almost TOO evil though).
The movie was also incredibly slow. I got through it, and it did move me in the end (Although the ends too abruptly, in my humble opinion. It leaves out too much at the end!); but I think I like the newer version much better.
I did think Richard Chamberlain made a wonderful Ralph. He was so very lovable. I also thought the actress who played Mdme Merle was excellent. Isabel's voice was a bit annoying, but I got used to it with time. She was a beautiful woman. The man cast as Osmond was disappointing to me. I thought John Malkovich in the newer version was much better (almost TOO evil though).
The movie was also incredibly slow. I got through it, and it did move me in the end (Although the ends too abruptly, in my humble opinion. It leaves out too much at the end!); but I think I like the newer version much better.
Good Adaptation
ldeangelis-757087 April 2023
I couldn't even get halfway through the Nicole Kidman fiasco, so I was glad to find this series, and even happier to discover the great Richard Chamberlain (whom I saw in person, BTW) in an early role. He was excellent as the heroine's Cousin Ralph, and so was Suzanne Neve, as Isabel Archer, the young heiress (thanks to her uncle's timely demise) who longs to be free of convention and live life on her own terms, but who - ironically - gets herself bound by marriage to the wrong man, in a life she feels is no longer her own. She finds she can't so easily escape either duty (to her marriage vows) nor responsibility (to the stepdaughter who needs her).
Even more ironic, is her early decision to avoid marriage, despite her feelings for Casper Goodwood (Ed Bishop), because she longs to be free, to travel, find herself and what she really wants, even if it shouldn't bring her happiness in the long run. And yet she ends up agreeing to marry an older man, (Gilbert Osmond, played by James Maxwell) whom she shares an interest in art with, without any particular emotional attachment, apparently okay with relinquishing the freedom she was so gung-ho on.
I think she was really frightened of feeling anything profound, like love or desire, scared it would make her too vulnerable, so instead she chooses a more aesthetic relationship, which wouldn't threaten her sense of self. In short, she prefers the 'lie-there-and-think-of-England" type of marriage, to one with orgasms.
More ironic still, is the way the suitors she rejected keep turning up, one like a bad penny (Edward fox as Lord Warburton, who pursues her stepdaughter for reasons other than affection), the other (Casper) to remind her what she's thrown away.
She wanted freedom, yet put herself in a cage, and isn't sure she can accept the key.
Even more ironic, is her early decision to avoid marriage, despite her feelings for Casper Goodwood (Ed Bishop), because she longs to be free, to travel, find herself and what she really wants, even if it shouldn't bring her happiness in the long run. And yet she ends up agreeing to marry an older man, (Gilbert Osmond, played by James Maxwell) whom she shares an interest in art with, without any particular emotional attachment, apparently okay with relinquishing the freedom she was so gung-ho on.
I think she was really frightened of feeling anything profound, like love or desire, scared it would make her too vulnerable, so instead she chooses a more aesthetic relationship, which wouldn't threaten her sense of self. In short, she prefers the 'lie-there-and-think-of-England" type of marriage, to one with orgasms.
More ironic still, is the way the suitors she rejected keep turning up, one like a bad penny (Edward fox as Lord Warburton, who pursues her stepdaughter for reasons other than affection), the other (Casper) to remind her what she's thrown away.
She wanted freedom, yet put herself in a cage, and isn't sure she can accept the key.
Worth seeing for Richard Chamberlain's great performance
west-122 April 2001
It is true that the style of this production seems very dated now, but it was an immense success in the UK when it was first shown. Richard Chamberlain was at the time chiefly famous for the Dr Kildare series, and scarcely thought of as an actor. But his intensely moving performance as Ralph Touchett was a revelation, and received the highest praise from the critics. Television stars of the time, when they attempted something more ambitious, talked about 'doing a Richard Chamberlain'. Probably as a result of his performance, soon afterwards he played Hamlet on stage and on TV.
Old-fashioned drama, but brilliant anyway!
johannes2000-127 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I bought the DVD-box without realizing that this production dated from 1968, some 40 years ago!! This obviously shows from the first minute on and takes some mental adjustment: the pace is extremely slow, the direction is very static, with no action whatsoever, the actors all just stand still or loiter about and deliver their extensive dialogues in a very distinct and outspoken way, very much as if you're watching a play on a stage. This theatrical feeling is enhanced by the fact that all of the "action" takes place indoors (apart from an occasional scene on a terrace within a cardboard decor of a supposed garden) and by the fact that there is no accompanying musical score, everything takes place in dead silence. Add this to the fact that the whole production takes some 4 ½ hours, and you seem to have all the ingredients for a terrible bore.
And then there's this remarkable thing: it's no bore at all, it's absolutely compelling entertainment of the highest level, that for all of these 4 ½ hours keeps you in awe and on the edge of your chair!! I never read this novel, or anything else from Henry James, so I cannot judge how true or free this adaptation is, but I guess that much of the dialogue comes right out of the novel itself, and I assure you that it's brilliant. Seldom did I watch and listened to such intelligent and cutting-edge lines, and if this is quintessential James, then I really have to start reading his work. Of course much credit has to go to screenwriter Jack Pulman (who was also responsible for the acclaimed "I Claudius"-series in 1976).
What you get is a gripping tale of a young girl Isabel who wants to be free to follow her own heart and dreams – however vague they are even to herself - and renounces the conventional path (in the late 19th century) of a marriage to one of her many rich and socially established suitors. In this process she stumbles over her own ambition when she at last marries an opportunistic up-start (Osmond) and fails to see the unselfish love that's right beside her (Ralph).
Most of the acting – if you can overlook the afore-mentioned out-dated style – is superb. I especially liked Rachel Gurney (a few years later starring in the famous series "Upstairs, Downstairs"), who portrays the devious but always self-possessed and aristocratic madame Merle, and Beatrix Lehman as Isabel's unconventional aunt. James Maxwell as Gilbert Osmond is blood-chilling in his over-civilized condescension, and Kathleen Byron is very convincing as his subversive sister. Suzanne Neve's performance as Isabel may be a bit too direct and outspoken, as she delivers all of her lines in the form of deliberate statements, which at times gets a bit wearisome. But this somehow also blends in with her character and besides she is a radiant beauty and very convincing in her evolution from the unspoilt young girl that wants to conquer the world to the mature lady who finally accepts her own faults.
To me however the absolute star of this production is Richard Chamberlain, 34 years old at the time and at his most elegant, debonair, and stunningly beautiful best! His acting seems like no acting at all, it's so natural, he really IS Ralph: civilized, intelligent, outwardly detached and cynical but at the same time gentle, warm and caring. Chamberlain gives a brilliant performance and even the death-bed scene, where cheap sobs always lie lurking around the corner, is in his hands totally convincing.
My only disappointment lies in the abrupt ending: after the death of Ralph we get some sort of anticlimax, as we hear that Isabel has returned to Italy, possibly to her husband, and two of her friends decide to follow her. And then, wham: "The end". Is this really the ending that Henry James provided?! I can cope with deliberate open endings that leave you wondering, but this feels like the movie was just chopped off. When they would have ended it 3 minutes earlier, I would have been totally satisfied!
And then there's this remarkable thing: it's no bore at all, it's absolutely compelling entertainment of the highest level, that for all of these 4 ½ hours keeps you in awe and on the edge of your chair!! I never read this novel, or anything else from Henry James, so I cannot judge how true or free this adaptation is, but I guess that much of the dialogue comes right out of the novel itself, and I assure you that it's brilliant. Seldom did I watch and listened to such intelligent and cutting-edge lines, and if this is quintessential James, then I really have to start reading his work. Of course much credit has to go to screenwriter Jack Pulman (who was also responsible for the acclaimed "I Claudius"-series in 1976).
What you get is a gripping tale of a young girl Isabel who wants to be free to follow her own heart and dreams – however vague they are even to herself - and renounces the conventional path (in the late 19th century) of a marriage to one of her many rich and socially established suitors. In this process she stumbles over her own ambition when she at last marries an opportunistic up-start (Osmond) and fails to see the unselfish love that's right beside her (Ralph).
Most of the acting – if you can overlook the afore-mentioned out-dated style – is superb. I especially liked Rachel Gurney (a few years later starring in the famous series "Upstairs, Downstairs"), who portrays the devious but always self-possessed and aristocratic madame Merle, and Beatrix Lehman as Isabel's unconventional aunt. James Maxwell as Gilbert Osmond is blood-chilling in his over-civilized condescension, and Kathleen Byron is very convincing as his subversive sister. Suzanne Neve's performance as Isabel may be a bit too direct and outspoken, as she delivers all of her lines in the form of deliberate statements, which at times gets a bit wearisome. But this somehow also blends in with her character and besides she is a radiant beauty and very convincing in her evolution from the unspoilt young girl that wants to conquer the world to the mature lady who finally accepts her own faults.
To me however the absolute star of this production is Richard Chamberlain, 34 years old at the time and at his most elegant, debonair, and stunningly beautiful best! His acting seems like no acting at all, it's so natural, he really IS Ralph: civilized, intelligent, outwardly detached and cynical but at the same time gentle, warm and caring. Chamberlain gives a brilliant performance and even the death-bed scene, where cheap sobs always lie lurking around the corner, is in his hands totally convincing.
My only disappointment lies in the abrupt ending: after the death of Ralph we get some sort of anticlimax, as we hear that Isabel has returned to Italy, possibly to her husband, and two of her friends decide to follow her. And then, wham: "The end". Is this really the ending that Henry James provided?! I can cope with deliberate open endings that leave you wondering, but this feels like the movie was just chopped off. When they would have ended it 3 minutes earlier, I would have been totally satisfied!
Theres a trick to enjoying it...
rps-227 July 2003
We picked up the two tape boxed set of this show at a garage sale for a bargain two bucks and started watching it that night. It seemed stiff and stolid until I realiized... The characters are stage acting, with exagerated body language and strong voice projection. Thats understandable when you realize the program was done in 1968, the early days of this sort of TV project. But once you wrap your mind around this fact and start watching it as a stage play rather than a TV drama, it becomes most enjoyable, a classic British drawing room drama. 1968 was almost 40 years ago, yet the program (if not all its performers) has aged well. The technical quality of the colour and image is excellent. The production techniques and sets are, if anything, refreshing in their lack of gimmickry. A confession... This is written after watching only the first of the two tapes. Four hours is a bit much for anything other than a Wagnerian opera. But I eagerly look forward to the second half tonight!
A hard grind
Rosabel20 July 2000
It is interesting to watch this series, one of the first British dramatizations of a classic novel, to see how far and how fast the method of filmmaking developed in subsequent years. In comparison with the great work the BBC was doing 10 or even 5 years later, "Portrait of a Lady" definitely seems like it comes out of the stone age of TV drama. There is something very stiff and stilted about this dramatization, though I suspect it is reasonably faithful to the book. First of all, the length is very gruelling; it's been some years since I watched it, but I seem to recall it being about 4 or 5 hours long. In a piece of such length, one suddenly notices the lack of artistry in the film work - most of the scenes are shot with a stationary camera, sort of middle distance, with very little in the way of closeups or angle changes. It is, for all the world, just like watching a stage play on TV, and I suspect that at this early stage, that is precisely how British television approached classic literature. Most of the story takes place indoors, which is rather a relief, as the occasional exterior scene tossed in looks embarrassingly fake.
The acting is good, and it's delightful to see Edward Fox in this series, so young and handsome, but the pacing is glacial. By the time I'd gotten about two-thirds of the way through this series, I realized that the characters were just going to talk and talk, and were never going to DO anything at all. Friends of mine who have read a lot of Henry James assure me that that is exactly what his novels are like, so perhaps the series gets points for fidelity to its origin, but it just doesn't make for very interesting TV.
The acting is good, and it's delightful to see Edward Fox in this series, so young and handsome, but the pacing is glacial. By the time I'd gotten about two-thirds of the way through this series, I realized that the characters were just going to talk and talk, and were never going to DO anything at all. Friends of mine who have read a lot of Henry James assure me that that is exactly what his novels are like, so perhaps the series gets points for fidelity to its origin, but it just doesn't make for very interesting TV.
Superb dramatization of James' ultimate novel
bbmtwist28 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY
Henry James' THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY (published in 1881) is considered to be his best work. It preceded two other popular novels similar in plot design (The Golden Bowl, The Wings of the Dove) by respectively 23 and 25 years. It reflects a complex fabric of relations and intentions, wishes and failures to fulfill those wishes, in which the characters are all too human and all too understandable.
The novel has been filmed only twice, first as a BBC mini-series in 1968 (winning a BAFTA Award for Set Design) and as a theatrically released film starring Nicole Kidman in 1996. The BBC production stretches over six installments, all running between 40 and 45 minutes (42, 45, 42, 44, 44, 43) totaling 4 hours and 20 minutes. The casting is impeccable.
Suzanne Neve, facially resembling actress Betsy Palmer and singer Doris Day, is bold, proud and independent in her interpretation of heroine, Isabel Archer. She is a new kind of 19th century woman, one with pluck, who intends to live on her own and not succumb to marriage. However naïve (her only alternative to marriage would be to work as a governess, seamstress or some such profession), she boldly pursues it and bring a blast of fresh air into the stolid lives around her. Even when her failure and burst illusions are evident to even herself, she proudly holds herself from others' pity. Not a well-known actress, but quite confident and fitting in the role.
Character roles are well filled: Beatrix Lehmann, acid and tart as a New England school marm, is perfect as aunt Lydia Touchett, who hopes to make a lady of her niece; Alan Gifford is warm and kindly as her much wiser uncle Daniel Touchett; Sarah Brackett is the brash and bold journalist Henrietta Stackpole; and Edward Fox is the kindly Lord Warburton, suitor to Isabel and who may have been the best match of the four men after her hand. These four supporting characters bring out facets of Isabel's character as she interacts with her destiny.
The only fly in the ointment is Ed Bishop's performance as Caspar Goodwood, the first of Isabel's suitors, who follows her to England from America and thence where she travels. He is played as a real sour puss, not only unattractive, but positively belligerent and nasty. He never makes of the character anyone in the audience could root for as a rival for Isabel's hand and hereby the performance fails utterly.
Moving into the shadowy world of the family wherein Isabel meets her sorry fate, James Maxwell is evil incarnate as the smarmy, Gilbert Osmond, lying, fawning and ingratiating himself into Isabel's life, simply to grasp her money, thereafter to show his true colors as a self-righteous, paranoid prig. Sharon Gurney, (daughter to fellow actress Rachel Gurney in real life) is properly confused and torn between her desires and her need to obey her tyrannical parent. Rachel Gurney herself (Upstairs Downstairs' Lady Marjorie) is in her own way as evil as her partner in crime, Osmond, in her portrayal of Madame Merle, but infiltrates and insinuates, rather than acting or accusing. She hopes to "manipulate" Isabel as she has everyone around her. This bit of casting is quite excellent as audiences can't help but associate Gurney with the much-loved character of Lady Marjorie and thereby the actress can pull off Madame Merle's subterfuge without giving the secret away until the end.
The two best performances in the work are those of Kathleen Byron as Countess Gemini, Osmond's sister, and Richard Chamberlain as Isabel's cousin, Ralph Touchett. Byron, who would later appear as Fanny in the BBC production of The Golden Bowl, is the only character with the key to the secret relationships working behind the scenes. It is she who finally bursts Isabel's naïve bubble by revealing the truths the latter has been too trusting to realize. It is a pivotal supporting performance and expertly delivered.
Chamberlain, who had to go to England to learn how to act after his success in American television roles, is perfect as the romantic and doomed Ralph. Facial expression, voice and extreme sensitivity are his tools and he makes of Ralph the one character we all really root for, the only one we really care about. One can get bored of Isabel's innocence, never of Ralph's belief in her.
The three plots of Portrait, Bowl and Wings all have to do with a pair of connivers who want money. In all three, their prey is a trusting American heiress. James works out diverse resolutions, but basically sticks in these three works to this same theme. A very interesting thesis paper could be made of this approach.
The great irony in Portrait is that two bold acts of good intention fail due to the impossibility of being able to fully know the heart and mind of the intended benefactor. Ralph bestows his half inheritance anonymously on Isabel, intending her to live a fabulous life with it. She in turn bestows her wealth on a husband she believes will live fabulously because of her gift. The error here is in her personality. She is too good, too kind, too trusting. She is taken in by a man who wants her money not to fulfill himself, but to sustain himself. She is superfluous to his design, merely a means to an end. Both Ralph and Isabel are foiled by the mistake of ultimately bestowing their wealth on an undeserving and conniving villain.
All in all, this BBC production is glorious to behold. The writing is superb, the acting and direction spot on, and the production values (sets and costumes) impeccable. Highly recommended for all fans of James and for those who love complex human drama superbly played.
Henry James' THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY (published in 1881) is considered to be his best work. It preceded two other popular novels similar in plot design (The Golden Bowl, The Wings of the Dove) by respectively 23 and 25 years. It reflects a complex fabric of relations and intentions, wishes and failures to fulfill those wishes, in which the characters are all too human and all too understandable.
The novel has been filmed only twice, first as a BBC mini-series in 1968 (winning a BAFTA Award for Set Design) and as a theatrically released film starring Nicole Kidman in 1996. The BBC production stretches over six installments, all running between 40 and 45 minutes (42, 45, 42, 44, 44, 43) totaling 4 hours and 20 minutes. The casting is impeccable.
Suzanne Neve, facially resembling actress Betsy Palmer and singer Doris Day, is bold, proud and independent in her interpretation of heroine, Isabel Archer. She is a new kind of 19th century woman, one with pluck, who intends to live on her own and not succumb to marriage. However naïve (her only alternative to marriage would be to work as a governess, seamstress or some such profession), she boldly pursues it and bring a blast of fresh air into the stolid lives around her. Even when her failure and burst illusions are evident to even herself, she proudly holds herself from others' pity. Not a well-known actress, but quite confident and fitting in the role.
Character roles are well filled: Beatrix Lehmann, acid and tart as a New England school marm, is perfect as aunt Lydia Touchett, who hopes to make a lady of her niece; Alan Gifford is warm and kindly as her much wiser uncle Daniel Touchett; Sarah Brackett is the brash and bold journalist Henrietta Stackpole; and Edward Fox is the kindly Lord Warburton, suitor to Isabel and who may have been the best match of the four men after her hand. These four supporting characters bring out facets of Isabel's character as she interacts with her destiny.
The only fly in the ointment is Ed Bishop's performance as Caspar Goodwood, the first of Isabel's suitors, who follows her to England from America and thence where she travels. He is played as a real sour puss, not only unattractive, but positively belligerent and nasty. He never makes of the character anyone in the audience could root for as a rival for Isabel's hand and hereby the performance fails utterly.
Moving into the shadowy world of the family wherein Isabel meets her sorry fate, James Maxwell is evil incarnate as the smarmy, Gilbert Osmond, lying, fawning and ingratiating himself into Isabel's life, simply to grasp her money, thereafter to show his true colors as a self-righteous, paranoid prig. Sharon Gurney, (daughter to fellow actress Rachel Gurney in real life) is properly confused and torn between her desires and her need to obey her tyrannical parent. Rachel Gurney herself (Upstairs Downstairs' Lady Marjorie) is in her own way as evil as her partner in crime, Osmond, in her portrayal of Madame Merle, but infiltrates and insinuates, rather than acting or accusing. She hopes to "manipulate" Isabel as she has everyone around her. This bit of casting is quite excellent as audiences can't help but associate Gurney with the much-loved character of Lady Marjorie and thereby the actress can pull off Madame Merle's subterfuge without giving the secret away until the end.
The two best performances in the work are those of Kathleen Byron as Countess Gemini, Osmond's sister, and Richard Chamberlain as Isabel's cousin, Ralph Touchett. Byron, who would later appear as Fanny in the BBC production of The Golden Bowl, is the only character with the key to the secret relationships working behind the scenes. It is she who finally bursts Isabel's naïve bubble by revealing the truths the latter has been too trusting to realize. It is a pivotal supporting performance and expertly delivered.
Chamberlain, who had to go to England to learn how to act after his success in American television roles, is perfect as the romantic and doomed Ralph. Facial expression, voice and extreme sensitivity are his tools and he makes of Ralph the one character we all really root for, the only one we really care about. One can get bored of Isabel's innocence, never of Ralph's belief in her.
The three plots of Portrait, Bowl and Wings all have to do with a pair of connivers who want money. In all three, their prey is a trusting American heiress. James works out diverse resolutions, but basically sticks in these three works to this same theme. A very interesting thesis paper could be made of this approach.
The great irony in Portrait is that two bold acts of good intention fail due to the impossibility of being able to fully know the heart and mind of the intended benefactor. Ralph bestows his half inheritance anonymously on Isabel, intending her to live a fabulous life with it. She in turn bestows her wealth on a husband she believes will live fabulously because of her gift. The error here is in her personality. She is too good, too kind, too trusting. She is taken in by a man who wants her money not to fulfill himself, but to sustain himself. She is superfluous to his design, merely a means to an end. Both Ralph and Isabel are foiled by the mistake of ultimately bestowing their wealth on an undeserving and conniving villain.
All in all, this BBC production is glorious to behold. The writing is superb, the acting and direction spot on, and the production values (sets and costumes) impeccable. Highly recommended for all fans of James and for those who love complex human drama superbly played.
Faithful and A Bit Stolid
baker-915 August 2002
Shot in a basic TV soap opera style, this adaptation of James' novel has some definite advantages over Jane Campion's misguided film version. For one thing, the BBC's 4-hour running time allows for more of the novel to make it onto the screen, without boredom ever rearing it's ugly head. Also, the character of Isabel emerges as something more than a feminist-style victim here, which is truer to James' intent. This Isabel is responsible for her mistakes and is willing to acknowledge it. And the characters of Ralph, Lord Warburton, and Gilbert have more depth.
Unfortunately, the direction is rather stilted in this version, and the performances are variable. Susannah Neve plays most all her scenes as Isabel in exactly the same forthright, unshaded way, which becomes very wearisome after a while. And her manner as an actress misses the character's vulnerability - it's hard to believe this Isabel could be bullied by anyone, including Gilbert Osmond. But she does command your attention when necessary.
Best are Edward Fox as Warburton, Beatrix Lehmann and Alan Gifford as her Aunt and Uncle, and the marvelous Kathleen Byron (remember her as the mad nun in "Black Narcissus"?) who easily steals every scene she's in as the Countess Gemini. Richard Chamberlain is charming and intelligent (though never moving) as Ralph, even though you never really believe he's all that sickly. James Maxwell does well enough by Osmond (and is a big improvement over the reptilian John Malkovich in the film).
Rachel Gurney as Madame Merle is very arch and obvious in a role Barbara Hershey later played so beautifully. At the bottom are Sarah Brackett, whose Henrietta Stackpole is worthy of a college play, and Ed Bishop who is a very wooden Caspar Goodwood.
If you're looking for a reasonable dramatic adaptation of James' dense novel, this will do well enough until something better comes along.
Unfortunately, the direction is rather stilted in this version, and the performances are variable. Susannah Neve plays most all her scenes as Isabel in exactly the same forthright, unshaded way, which becomes very wearisome after a while. And her manner as an actress misses the character's vulnerability - it's hard to believe this Isabel could be bullied by anyone, including Gilbert Osmond. But she does command your attention when necessary.
Best are Edward Fox as Warburton, Beatrix Lehmann and Alan Gifford as her Aunt and Uncle, and the marvelous Kathleen Byron (remember her as the mad nun in "Black Narcissus"?) who easily steals every scene she's in as the Countess Gemini. Richard Chamberlain is charming and intelligent (though never moving) as Ralph, even though you never really believe he's all that sickly. James Maxwell does well enough by Osmond (and is a big improvement over the reptilian John Malkovich in the film).
Rachel Gurney as Madame Merle is very arch and obvious in a role Barbara Hershey later played so beautifully. At the bottom are Sarah Brackett, whose Henrietta Stackpole is worthy of a college play, and Ed Bishop who is a very wooden Caspar Goodwood.
If you're looking for a reasonable dramatic adaptation of James' dense novel, this will do well enough until something better comes along.
room with no view
red_schonewille29 March 2016
It is highly recommended watching these series together with reading the novel. The story is basically indoors so it has the atmosphere of a play. However the book contains some outdoor activities in London, Florence and Rome. They were missed completely. Because of this the movie doesn't come alive as for instance 'A room with a view' does which has basically the same settings. Much attention is given to interior decorating and costumes. They are worth watching on their own. In close up scenes it was visible that large amounts of grime were there. That gave even more a sense of watching a play. In the end a crucial scene was completely lost in the movie that I won't spoil. For me Pansy was the true hero of the movie more so than in the book because of her acting so wistful.
Beautiful and True
CACHERT26 August 2001
Done in the old Tape and Talent style of British adaptations of novels, it is a poignant and absorbing telling of the story. The cast, Richard Chamberlain included, shows what ensemble work is all about.
There used to be a tape of this series. Where is it now?
There used to be a tape of this series. Where is it now?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
