Masterpiece Theatre: Bleak House (1985) User Reviews

Very good adaptation

[bob998 · 8/10 · 21 January 2015]

Watching this series reminded me of how strongly Dickens has influenced us. Bleak House doesn't have the fame of Great Expectations, Oliver Twist or David Copperfield, but some of the characters and scenes have entered our consciousness forever. Miss Flite and her birds, Mr. Chadband and his wearisome speechifying ("It is the ray of rays, the sun of suns... It is the light of Terewth."), Mr. Skimpole, who would be a fascist if ever he could work up the energy: they are some of our mental furniture. The camera-work is up to the challenge of bringing the verbose story to life, just see the scene of Tulkinghorn's murder with the Roman soldier painted on the ceiling pointing down at the proceedings.

The BBC assembles its casts carefully. Denholm Elliott as Jarndyce and Diana Rigg as Lady Dedlock are excellent, Peter Vaughan is a fine Tulkinghorn, Charlie Drake repulsive as Smallweed, and T. P. McKenna does Skimpole superbly. Suzanne Burden is appropriately self-effacing as Esther.

A Wonderful Adaptation

[theowinthrop · 7/10 · 27 May 2005]

This production was made in the middle 1980s, and appears to be the first serious attempt to put BLEAK HOUSE on celluloid. No film version of the novel was ever attempted (it is remarkably rich in subplots that actually serve as counterpoints to each other, so that it would have been very hard to prune it down). The novel was the only attempt by Dickens to make a central narrator (one of two in the work) a woman, Esther Summerson. Esther is raised by her aunt and uncle, who (in typical Dickens style) mistreat her. She is illegitimate, but they won't tell her anything about her parentage. Later we get involved with the gentry, Sir Leicester Dedlock, and his wife. Lady Honoria Deadlock (Dame Diana Rigg) is having an increasingly difficult time regarding her private life and the meddling involvement of the family solicitor Tulkinghorn (Peter Vaughn). We also are involved with the actions of Richard Carstone (Esther's boyfriend) in trying to win a long drawn out estate chancery case, Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, which everyone (even Richard's cousin John Jarndyce - played by Desmond Elliot) warns is not worth the effort.

Dickens had been a law reporter and then a parliamentary reporter before he wrote fiction. Starting with the breach of promise case in PICKWICK PAPERS, Dickens looked closely at the law. Mr. Bumble said it was "a ass" in OLIVER TWIST and Dickens would consistently support that view. He looks at the slums as breeding grounds for crime in TWIST, that the law barely tries to cure. He attacks the Chancery and outdated estate laws, as well as too powerful solicitors and greedy lawyers (Tulkinghorn, Vholes) in BLEAK HOUSE. In LITTLE DORRIT he attacks the debtors' prisons (he had hit it also in David COPPERFIELD). In OUR MUTUAL FRIEND he looks at testators and wills. In THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD he apparently was going to go to a murder trial. Dickens was far more critical of legal institutions than most of his contemporaries, including Thackeray.

But the novel also looks at other problems (like charity and religious hypocrisy, the budding Scotland Yard detective force, social snobbery in the industrial revolution). He also uses the novel to satirize various people: Leigh Hunt the writer, Inspector Fields of Scotland Yard, and even the notorious Maria Manning. Most of these points were kept in this fine mini-series version. If it is shown again on a cable station, catch it.

Slow, but not so sure

[keith-moyes · 7/10 · 16 July 2007]

You don't need to read this review.

An earlier review, by pninson of Seattle, has already identified all the main shortcomings of this production. I can only amplify its basic arguments.

Bleak House was a relatively late Dickens novel and is much darker than his earlier work. This is taken too literally by the director, Ross Devenish, who piles on the gloom and fog too much. When Ada, Rick and Esther appear, half an hour into the opening episode, it is a relief just to be in daylight for the first time. In some of the murkier scenes it was hard to see what was actually on my TV screen. I watched the whole thing in one day, starting in mid-afternoon. As daylight faded this became less of an issue, but I have a pretty good TV and I have never encountered this problem before at any time of day.

The pacing is very deliberate (i.e. slow). I am sure this was intensional, but it is overdone. There are numerous shots of people trudging though the muck and gloom of Victorian London that are held longer than is necessary to establish the mood and atmosphere. A good editor could probably take several minutes out of each fifty-minute episode, without losing a line of dialogue, just by trimming each of these scenes slightly.

I don't want to overstate these two problems. You soon adjust to the look and pace of this production. The more important issue is that it doesn't always tell the story very effectively. Earlier Dickens novels are as long as Bleak House, but are not nearly so intricately plotted. For example, I recently re-read Nicholas Nickleby because I was intrigued to see how Douglas McGrath crammed an 800 page book into his two-hour movie. The answer is simple: the book is full of padding. McGrath cut great swathes of the novel while still retaining all the essential story elements. This would not be possible with Bleak House.

This production needs its seven hours. Probably, it needs even longer, because many elements of its convoluted plot are not sufficiently clear, or as well handled, as they need to be. A few random examples will illustrate the problems.

The maid, Rosa, appears from nowhere with no background, so Lady Dedlock's attachment to her is largely unmotivated.

Sergeant George's acquiescence in Tulkinhorn's demand for a sample of Horton's handwriting is somewhat fudged.

It is not made clear enough that Esther is actually in love with Woodcourt when she agrees to marry John Jarndyce. Neither is it clear that they have agreed not to announce their engagement, or why.

Ada and Rick's secret marriage is omitted. In one episode they are merely lovers, in the next, people are suddenly referring to them as husband and wife.

Mrs Rouncewell is only introduced at a late stage in the story and Sargeant George's estrangement from his family is left unexplained - as is the means by which she is discovered.

Tulkinhorn's dedication to maintaining the honour and respectability of the Dedlock family is understated, so his motive for persecuting Lady Dedlock is more obscure than it need be.

The involvement of the brick makers with both Tom and (later) Lady Dedlock is somewhat opaque.

It is not obvious that Guppy renews his offer to Esther because her smallpox scars have all but vanished.

This is only a selection: there are others. They are not major problems and the main thrust of the story is clear enough. Nonetheless, they are minor irritations that detract from its power: you shouldn't have to puzzle over little plot points. However, there are more important structural problems that do weaken the story in its later stages.

The whole business of Tulkinhorn's murder is somewhat thrown away. Bucket immediately pinpoints Hortense as a suspect, which undermines the suspense of Sergeant George's predicament and the importance of finding Mrs Rouncewell. It also diminishes the impact of the sub-plot in which suspicion is thrown on Lady Dedlock and weakens the scene in which Hortense is unmasked in front of Sir Lester.

A more serious problem is that the murder, its investigation and the subsequent search for Lady Dedlock, dominate the story for over an hour, during which time we completely lose sight of the other main plot strand: the legal case and its effect on Rick. His failing finances, his gouging by Vholes and Skimpole, Ada's despair, his declining health and so on, are all put on hold for an entire episode. This may be how Dickens wrote the book (I haven't read it for years) but a good screenplay should keep the different plot strands moving forward together.

Finally, Smallweed's role in the story is so diminished that he is almost superfluous. His discovery of the new will, that triggers the final phase of the story, is also thrown away. It happens off screen.

Despite all of this, it is still a very good production. Many of the performances are outstanding. Individual scenes are beautifully realised. Its accumulating sense of tragedy is very powerful. I would still be recommending it as a superb adaptation of a great book, had it not been for the 2005 production. In fact, I probably wouldn't be fully aware of its defects if I hadn't seen how Andrew Davies did it better. I have been critical of Davies's Jane Austen adaptations, but I have to admit that he really knows how to tame Dickens's sprawling books.

This is an impressive and gripping drama and well worth seven hours of anybody's time. Nonetheless, its probable fate is to be viewed mainly as a cross-reference to the near-definitive 2005 version.

A Perfect Dickensian Adaptation!

[peacham · 10/10 · 19 November 2001]

"Bleak House" is hands down the finest adaptation of a Charles Dickens Novel ever put on screen. Alway one of My favorite novels,I was exteremely pleased with this Television Mini Series. The late, great Denholm Elliot was perfectly cast as the noble John Jardyce and Diana Rigg was sheer perfection as the doomed Ladty Dedlock. The film captures the essence of Dickens era and is extremely faithful to the book,oly making minor plot cuts that do not effect the story. over all a brilliant,moving and atmosphereic film.

Don't miss the BBC's version of Bleak House

[Red-125 · 10/10 · 6 March 2015]

"Bleak House" (1985) is a wonderful BBC adaptation of the novel by Charles Dickens. The movie was made for TV, so it does well on the small screen. It's long (8 episodes in 6 1/2 hours), but even that much screen time isn't enough for this novel, which is filled with plots and sub-plots, and many, many characters.

As would be expected from the BBC, the acting is outstanding, right down to the smallest cameo roles. Denholm Elliott is excellent as John Jahndyce, and Suzanne Burden is superb as Esther Summerson.

Even though Esther is the real protagonist of the novel, for me the most interesting character is Lady Honoria Dedlock. Lady Dedlock is played by Diana Rigg. Of course, Rigg was renowned for her beauty, but at age 47, I thought she was somewhat old for the part. (Lady Honoria was married to an older man, but she probably was 34 or 35 in the context of the novel.) Gillian Anderson, at age 35, played the role in the 2005 Bleak House. Anderson was impossibly beautiful and elegant as Lady Honoria. So, in my mind, that's what Lady Honoria looks like, and Riggs just can't reach that level. However, she's a fine actor, and does an excellent job.

All directors love to show us 19th Century urban England's mud, filth, smoke, and gloom. However, I've never seen these things portrayed so effectively as in this movie. You don't get the feel that you're watching a film set. You feel as if you're watching real life, which was certainly abysmal for the poor in that era. I never had the sense that the extras were waiting for their turn to play their part at just the right moment. Those scenes all looked organic and unrehearsed. (Of course, we know that the extras were, indeed, waiting for their turn. However, my point is that you don't feel this when you're watching the film.)

David Copperfield has a basically simple plot, and is readily adapted to the screen. Bleak House has an extraordinarily complex plot, and adapting it must be an extraordinarily difficult challenge. However, we have the good fortune to have two great versions to view. If I had to choose one over the other, I think I'd go with this 1985 version. The beauty is that you don't have to choose. See them both!

Long, but short

[richard-camhi · 6/10 · 10 July 2011]

This and the 2005 version can be regarded as complimentary to each other, as each contains elements of the story not present in the other. In general, the 1985 version is strong on BLEAK, and the 2005 version is strong on characterizations. But there is so much more to the novel than even both versions together have given us. For example, the character in the book who is most central to the story is NOT Lady Dedlock, but Esther Summerson -- in the novel, much of the story is told by her in the first person, and it is her goodness, her wisdom, and her selflessness that set up the needed perspective to the victim vs. victimizer nature of many of the other characters. But really, the problem is that the book is on such a vast scale, that watching either version is like listening to a 15-minute version of a Bruckner symphony. Ideally, some day someone will just go ahead and take the entire novel as it is and use it as the screenplay.

Best adaptation of a classic novel

[phwbooth · 10/10 · 20 December 2007]

This version of Bleak House is the best adaptation of a classic novel known to me. The representation of the court of Chancery as a 'character' in the drama is magnificent. The acting is marvellous, from the sinister Tulkinghorn, to the Dedlocks, Smallweed, Crooke, Miss Flyte, and the two young lovers. But it is the spider's web of chancery that holds the whole thing together, and the cinematography is superb. What mistake did the BBC make about copyright that meant that this version could not be seen in the UK on either video or DVD for many years? I tried to find out from them, but faced a stone wall. In the end I got a DVD copy from Canada.

Bleak House a Tough, Tedious Slog

[jackbuckley-25095 · 6 December 2019]

I recently have been on a major Dickens dvd binge, watching several of the early 80's BBC TV versions of "Oliver Twist", "The Pickwick Papers", and "Dombey & Son". About a year previously, I watched "Hard Times" and "Nicholas Nickleby". I was unfamiliar with all but "Twist" and "Pickwick", though I've never read any of the original novels upon which all the aforementioned titles are based. I've seen other TV and movie versions of several famous Dickens titles over the years, some from BBC, some from various studios. The current binge, though, has been as an antidote to pathetic regular TV and lack of worthwhile theatrical releases. I've been craving compelling plots, historical escapism, and fascinating characters. Knowing Dickens filled these requirements, I indulged myself. Bleak House was my latest excursion into a story I knew nothing about. Having just recently finished the excellent BBC TV movie version of Dombey & Son(again, about which I knew nothing), I was looking immensely forward to House. The first drawback that almost killed it for me were the several impossible-to-understand accents, a common factor in all these adaptations, a major hindrance to their enjoyment. It seemed the worst in Bleak House. Fortunately, most of the main, important characters were usually easy enough to understand. One good thing is that, as in many of these British literary films, one or more major characters are generally silent, saying very little. Mostly reaction shots and quiet, sparse dialog. My next major complaint, as has been mentioned by others, were the dismally dim and grungy settings. Despite historical accuracy and Dickens' original descriptions, visually these were extremely tedious and depressing to watch. They may work wonderfully on the printed page but are excruciating downers to sit through. In fact, there's virtually no color in the entire production. Sometimes I wonder if the endless human, animal, and carriage movement and congestion in the streets of London were as constant and chaotic as these films often depict, but especially so in House. My point being, aside from the grime and filth, such crowded, drab street commotion was just exhausting to watch. Episode 4 was the absolute worst for me. Incoherent accents, dark settings, and a complete standstill of plot, along with long, static, extremely talky scenes. Almost gave up on the series but forced myself to stick with it. I won't rehash the storyline but it IS convoluted and confusing. Sound quality is wildly uneven, too. One minute I had the volume up as high as it goes, the next minute, a character or music was so loud as to blast one's eardrums, necessitating an immediate turn-down, only to repeat the process almost continuously. Acting overall pretty good. I think Mr. Elliott takes the honors. I identified with him the most. The actor playing the man-child Skimpole very good, also. As much as I've always liked Diana Rigg, she didn't do much for me in this, spending most of her limited screen time staring at characters as they talk at her for what seems like forever--her face, emblematic of her regal detachment, completely immobile for lengthy periods of time, just staring. Not the most interesting use of a visual medium. A couple of lesser characters, maids, I think, were facially indistinguishable from each other, adding to confusion. The drama has its moments but they're sporadic. Convoluted plot, horrendously dark, grungy settings, and incomprehensible and/or irritating accents make Bleak House a long, tough slog. And yet the greatness of Dickens still comes through. On film, though, House is too labyrinthine and plodding, with largely unlikeable or uninteresting characters, and depressingly dim scenes that didn't translate well visually. Most surprising of all, for those who stick with it, is the very satisfying and moving conclusion(to me). Bleak House is a mixed bag in terms of this particular BBC version but is very bleak indeed to watch. Best advice is to skip, as it's not really worth the investment of time, even for a Dickens fanatic like me!

Flies to Wanton Boys.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 20 July 2009]

It's sometimes said that 99 percent of all lawyers give the rest a bad name.

I can't say how closely the film follows the novel, never having read the book, but since this clocks in at some six and a half hours it's a good bet that most of the base are covered or, at least, we can say with some certainty that this isn't a Reader's Digest condensed version.

The production values are high, well up to the standards of other BBC classic series like Inspector Morse and Sherlock Holmes. We can believe Dickens' London looked, sounded, and thought a lot like this. There are some occasional minor lapses -- some sportsman firing a pistol with a percussion cap in 1840 or 1820 or whenever this took place.

The acting too is to be applauded. Suzanne Burden is the polite and honest heroine who quietly goes about doing good. She's cute too, in a mature way, her beauty in her compassionate nature not in any flirtatiousness. Denholm Elliott is her guardian (and more than that, as it turns out). Burden and Elliott are two of the very few characters who are good in an unalloyed way. Another is a former sergeant forced to do evil by evil people. Another is a poor and helpless young boy.

I don't think anyone else could have written this. It's got all the earmarks of Dickens -- poverty, tragic deaths, capitalism in the raw, the generous rich guy in his gated home, hidden parentage, shadowy motives, and the impotence or outright maliciousness of the justice system. Well, not the justice system as a whole but the chancery, which was evidently a court that decided matters having to do with the distribution of property. (So I gather from Wikipedia.) It became so notoriously rigid and dilatory that it was thoroughly revamped in England in 1973. Twice, Elliott's character describes it as "a curse." The most impressive scene involves a money-scrounging creditor hounding a retired soldier in the latter's gymnasium during a fencing lesson. The sergeant is more masculine in the traditional sense than any other male character I remember from Dickens. The apoplectic money lender and renter is screaming threats from his seat and the sergeant turns towards him and does one delicate exercise with the saber after another, each advancement bringing him closer to his tormentor, while the scarlet-faced old creditor shrinks back into his seat.

A couple of things are missing. Often Dickens will stick in at least one or two amusing lines of dialog. ("Humbug!" or "The law is a ass.") Not here. "Bleak" house is the right title. Second, there are practically no Weberian "ideal types" -- no Mr. Micawbers or Artful Dodgers or Scrooges. Third, the atmosphere, the whole ethos, is relentlessly dismal. One tribulation follows another, usually having to do with money or some shameful peccadillo out of the past.

My God, it's depressing. It's as if the author were venting his spleen on everything he hated in the world he knew. Poverty, okay. He KNEW poverty. But one wonders what the chancery did to Dickens to deserve this kind of treatment.

Maybe I should add that I've just watched the first episode of the 2005 series -- and it's better in two ways. There is more zip in the direction, so the pace is a little faster. And the business of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce is explained satisfactorily right up front, instead of lurking about in the shadows as that mysterious "curse," so the plot is easier to follow.

Great Dickens adaptation

[lfisher0264 · 10/10 · 5 December 2005]

I have bought the DVD of this version to compare against the current BBC 2005 version (which is brilliant). The 1985 was adapted by Arthur Hopcraft, who adapted Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy for TV and who died this year (2005). I remember great acting, especially from Rigg and Elliott, and moving music. (Music in the 2005 version is far more understated, but very telling.) Just to pick up other commentators on a couple of points: Richard Carstone is Ada Claire's boyfriend, not Esther's. Esther had no uncle. Charlie Drake never played Krook in either version, nor did he play Toby Esterhase in TTSS! Krook is played by comedian Johnny Vegas in the 2005 version. Toby was played by Bernard Hepton.

Both versions are honourable and admirable adaptations of Dickens' great novel. Now read the book! It's not perfect, and the sentimentality may make you wince at times, but I defy you not to cry - and laugh!

Superb

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 10 September 2013]

There will always be inevitable comparisons to which adaptation of Bleak House people prefer, this or 2005. From a personal point of view, there is no real preference as both adaptations are outstanding in their own way. And not just as adaptations, but also on their own as well, which is every bit as important. The book is compelling, atmospheric and rich in characterisation. It is a mammoth book, and one of Dickens' least accessible(from first-time personal experience, the law stuff took its time to get completely). Both are well-made, tell the story extremely well indeed and brilliantly written and acted, the 2005 adaptation's characterisation is a little richer but this adaptation is a little more atmospheric.

Not everybody will find the 70s-80s Dickens serial adaptation their cup of tea. They may find them slow, long and with a lot of talk. That isn't the case with me. Of the ones seen, they respect their source material(even with omissions and changes here and there), are detailed, very evocative and Dickenesian and are well-made, written and acted. And that is the case with this Bleak House exactly. The costumes and sets look beautiful and very detailed, succeeding also in capturing the bleak nature of the book. They are also full of atmosphere and don't come across as too clean. The music is a pleasing mix of haunting overtones and delicate chamber-music-like, and fit with each scene excellently(if occasionally a little overdone in the final episode, some may prefer the more understated nature of the 2005 adaptation).

Bleak House(1985) scores very highly in the writing stakes too. Throughout the dialogue is intelligently adapted, there are scenes with a lot of talk but they weren't that tedious to me. The heartfelt tragedy, poignancy, sharp observations and nobility of Dickens' writing comes through loud and clear- some of Dickens' other books were also whimsical and had some nice comic scenes, The Old Curiosity Shop springs to mind- and the writing in the adaptation is distinctively Dickenesian in style. Bleak House(1985) is highly successful in how it tells this great story, characters are splendidly drawn and crucial scenes have their impact.

The adaptation is long, nearly seven hours, but there's a lot of characterisation and plotting going on so interest is always maintained. Things can unfold slowly, the first episode in particular, but that shouldn't be a turn-off. The book is also huge and has so much to tell, the long length was necessary and so was the pacing. Adaptation-wise, even with the omissions of a few minor characters, it is faithful in spirit to the book and to Dickens. The acting is very fine from all, three at least even are outstanding. Diana Rigg's Lady Dedlock is haunting and aristocratic as well as haughty and anguished. Denholm Elliot is a noble, gentle and moving Mr Jarndyce. And Peter Vaughan is splendidly sinister as Tulkinghorn. Coindentally, those characters were also performed the best in the 2005 adaptation as well.

Suzanne Burden plays Esther with backbone instead of being insipid or too meek, if not as warm as Anna Maxwell Martin. And Jonathan Moore is delightful as Guppy. All the characters are beautifully performed, much pleasure can be seen in those of the Smallweeds, Mrs Flite, Inspector Bucket, Sir Leicester Dedlock, Krook, Harold Skimpole and Jo too. All in all, a superb adaptation. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Tedious production

[pninson · 5/10 · 7 July 2007]

It's odd to find myself criticizing a production that stars Diana Rigg and Denholm Elliott, but I have no choice. Not only is this miniseries often dull and slow-moving, but it's very hard to follow the story. After watching episode one, I was so confused that I set it aside, and waited until I'd watched the much superior 2005 production with Gillian Anderson.

I picked this up again after seeing the more recent series, so at least I can follow the story. But it's still not that coherent. I haven't read the novel yet, so this production may be more faithful, but it's certainly not very good television. All the interior scenes are so dark (as are the street scenes) that it's sometimes difficult to see clearly. Much of this (in the street scenes, anyway) was apparently done to convey the filth and fog of London --- but they overdid it.

Diana Rigg is a splendid actress, but she has very few scenes in this production, and as she plays the role with any icy hauteur, betraying almost no hint of her vulnerability, it's hard to empathize with her. The rest of the cast tries its best, but this is just not a good script. It's slow and hard to follow.

If you're not familiar with the plot, I recommend the 2005 series with Gillian Anderson as the one to start with. This is one is worthwhile but misfires on many levels. Below par for BBC productions of this vintage.

Wonderful.

[rocknrelics · 9/10 · 26 October 2021]

Atmospheric, evocative, any superlative you'd like to mention applies to this excellent adaptation.

The cinematography is such you can believe you're eavesdropping in on the London of the period, everything is perfect, with scenes often looking like paintings .

The acting is a true masterclass, this is far better than the later BBC adaptation, with performances more nuanced, and Diana Rigg and Denholm Elliott giving the definitive Lady Dedlock and John Jarndyce respectively.

Do seek this out on dvd if you've not seen it, you'll thank me for it.

I saw this AFTER the 2005 version but this is my preferred version. An excellent production for the 80s with a more cohesive and clearer presentation of a complex novel

[mickman91-1 · 8/10 · 6 January 2022]

This is quite difficult to come by because it is not on streaming anywhere in the UK so I had to buy the DVD (old school). I had already seen the 2005 Bleak House but despite its length and thoroughness I didn't find it as clear and as engaging as I would like so wanted to watch this version which is the only other currently available. This one is a little shorter than the more recent version but I found this one extremely impressive. I watch a lot of novel adaptations and TV period stuff from 1970 onwards, and this is one of the best adaptations of the 1980s for sure. Dickens' plot, which is multifaceted and complicated to follow, is presented in this version with really impressive clarity. I found this one made much more sense from a plot perspective than the more modern version, all the characters motivations were clearer and the scenes logically followed on from each other. The pacing is excellent for a production of this time which can tend to be rather slow but this was genuinely engaging all throughout. Casting was pretty decent all round, pretty similar to the 2005 version which definitely took inspiration from this. But Dame Diana Rigg as Lady Deadlock was superb. She exudes so much charisma and talent. I found it strange when watching the 2005 version that the novel is called Bleak House because the a lot of that version takes in place in Chesney Wold which is also presented as being the more literally bleak house. But in this version it made more sense to me why the novel is called Bleak House, because Esther Summerson is the main character and the her life at Bleak House is the centre of the novel and the current that runs through right till the end. This wasn't so clear in the 2005 version there was too much jumping around and they made too much use of Charles Dance as Tulkington to make it dramatic and suspenseful, where I think the ratio and proportionality of each of the plot lines was better in this version and made the overall story feel more cohesive and complete because of it.

Bleak House - Diana Rigg

[jclark2222000 · 8/10 · 16 September 2009]

I like this presentation - I have read Bleak House and I know it is so difficult to present the entire book as it should be, and even others like Little Dorrit - I have to admit they did a very good show with the staged Nicholas Nickelby. I love Diana Rigg and I could see the pain of Lady Dedlock, even through the expected arrogance of the aristocracy. I am sorry, I think she is the best Lady Dedlock... I am not sure who could have made a better Jarndyce, but I am OK with Mr. Elliott. It is not easy to present these long Dickens' books - Oliver Twist would be easier - this is a long, and if you don't care for all the legal situations can be dreary or boring. I think this presentation is entertaining enough not to be boring. I just LOVED Mr. Smallweed - it can be entertaining. There is always a child - Jo will break your heart here... I think we should be given a chance to judge for ourselves...

I have to say I loved the show. Maybe if I read the book again, as I usually do, after seeing the movie, maybe I can be more critical. In the meantime - I think it is a good presentation.

The best Dickens adaptation yet....

[jve2102 · 9/10 · 1 January 2008]

This is a great adaptation and a great miniseries in its own right. The plot cutdowns might disappoint the fans of the book (but really how many modern readers have read Bleak House without seeing a film version first? I know of only a few).

I think it is quite appalling to see reviews critical of the series which have clearly been written by people who haven't a clue about the story - did you actually SEE the series or did you just bag a BBC production because Gillian Anderson was in the newer version?

The series captures the mood, pace, characters and plot-drivers (cutting out the Dickensian flourishes which aren't needed and detract from a film treatment like the Turveydrop story, the Smallweed family dynamic and the extra lawyers - Tangle, Vholes etc are very truncated). The only omission that I wish had been kept was the Jellyby incident but as the first episode is already a trifle slow (after the first episode the pace is perfect) I can see it had to go.

The only other criticism I have is that Jo's death could have been more faithfully done. I can see that would have practically canonized Woodcourt and he's kept a little more human for not having that scene but really I think Jo's death is one of the most poignant points of the book and I missed it even though it always makes me cry.

Has theowinthrop actually seen the series? HOW did he think that Esther was raised by her aunt and UNCLE?? Who is this uncle? I suppose someone who could mistake the name of DENHOLM Eliott for Desmond isn't really an appreciator of English art (film or literature).

I also think he mistakes the treatment of the law. YES the law is drawn VERY badly in Bleak House. It fails the descendants of Jarndyce whose valuable inheritance is eaten up by the costs of litigation, it fails the deceased Tom Jarndyce and Rick Carstone and all who have faith in the suit. It fails Miss Flyte. In some sense it also fails Captain Hawdon who is driven to his death by the monotony of law copyist work. Yes it feeds the scavengers of Vholes and Tangle. But it also makes men like Guppy and Kenge able to move beyond their station in life. Though not kind to social status-climbers Dickens clearly would have preferred that they weren't bound to being stuck in the station to which they were born (contrast Jo and the brickmakers' families to the climbing out of poverty by Charley Neckett).

Also, the law, while misused by Tulkinghorn and the Chancery vultures, is actually the source of security for the wards of the Court Ada and Richard, and for Esther who is simply Jarndyce's ward. Their security was ensured by the law which delivers them to Jarndyce.

I can't see how anyone could have trouble following the story - remember you aren't supposed to realize Esther is Lady Dedlock's daughter right at the beginning. Neither are you supposed to "get" all the connections immediately. Instant gratification just doesn't happen in Dickens.

As for "seeing clearly" through the fog - gosh the Gillian Anderson had such scatty editing that I found IT impossible to follow and I knew the plot already!

I found Diana Rigg absolutely brilliant (overacting and drama don't make a good Lady Dedlock but if you think they do try the Gillian Anderson version).

It's ADA and Rick not "Kate"! and you get all you need of the Rouncewell subplot.

Perhaps the best classic television drama...

[smnhow · 10/10 · 12 March 2022]

Dickens' ambitious masterpiece, dramatised by the BBC in 1985, remains the benchmark by which all other period dramas can be measured. The casting is particularly inspired but the success of this epic series really rests with the editor who manages to maintain a finely judged pace which, like the BBC's earlier War And Peace (Antony Hopkins version), gives the original novel a chance to breathe whilst also maintaining momentum.

The famous London fog dominates the novel as it does here, allowing for a nightmarish quality and a lovely fluidity of camerawork so that we glide from one little locale to another with ease and conviction, all building to a convincingly cruel world in which there are only a few islands of humanity which eventually become connected.. Bleak House is Dickens' most angry novel and Denholm Elliot is magnificent as a John Jarndyce outraged by Society's inequalities. TP Mcenna provides a wonderful counterpoint.as his charming but loathsome leech of a friend, Harold Skimpole. The plot, of course, revolves round Mr Jarndyce's three young wards and Suzanne Burden does particularly well with Esther, the main character. Personally, I really liked Philip Franks' performance as an optimistic young man, Richard Carstone, brought to despair by bitter experience. This brings us to Dame Diana Rigg's tragic Lady Dedlock and one of television drama's greatest performances. La Rigg doesn't shy away from the cold imperious mask Lady Dedlock wears, her severe hairstyle emphasising her haughtiness and total lack of feeling, Behind that mask is a mind racing ever more desperately in a bid to escape the deadly trap which into which Lady Dedlock's heart has led her. And then comes the self-realisation that there might be no escape. All of this is achieved by the late dame without a hint of melodrama, with few words, but with eyes that speak volumes.

Bleak House is particularly rich in secondary characters, almost as memorable as those in David Copperfield. Sylvia Coleridge gives us poor mad Miss Flite, twittering musically like all of her trapped birds, and the ever wonderful Sam Kelly captures Mr Snagsby with equal success.

I cannot recommend this wonderful production more highly, with its musicality, its cinematography, its editing and its beautiful performances. Don't try to watch it all in one go. Two episodes nightly will furnish you with a wonderfully entertaining week because this is the BBC at its very best , in the middle of its golden decade, the 1980s, when it respected its viewers' intelligence and honoured the classic writers who inspired its epic dramas.

Insipid Bleak House

[clotblaster · 2/10 · 24 January 2006]

This series gets 2 stars solely because it puts some of Dickens' Bleak House on film and perhaps someone will read the book. Contrary to what is probably received opinion, Diana Rigg was poor as Lady Dedlock. She was clunky and wooden. Lady D. is a reserved character but not a martinet. Denholm Elliot is wrong, wrong, wrong for Mr. Jarndyce. So I'll interrupt myself and respond to all those people who are saying: "I didn't read the book, so I don't have to take this guy's opinion because he's basing his evaluations on the book." True and not true. For ex, Diana Rigg is bad in her role because of poor acting whether or not you've read the book. On the other hand, Denholm Elliot is a passable Jarndyce (although too old). The series fails not because it's unfair to compare it to the book, but because the various plot lines and characters just don't coalesce to make a coherent, dramatic, mysterious andcompelling entertainment. It is dull and flat. If you want to make apossibly good Bleak House, you need to expend 20 hours of film in 10 two hour episodes. But I suggest that producers etc. leave Dickens alone (even A Christmas Carol). Television deadens the genius of Dickens as manifested in his ingenious plots and unforgettable characters.