“A Room With A View”, again
Perhaps the comment I left yesterday wasn’t clear enough. Forster’s novel was published in 1908. It is, therefore a huge liberty of the adapter to bring the action up to 1923, with a sad Lucy Honeychurch appearing again in Florence to attempt to recapture something she had lost when George was killed in the conflict of 1914-1918. It turns the whole into quite another story, one that Forster could not have predicted and didn’t try to.
I struggle here to make a meaningful comparison, although it might go something like this; imagine a production of “Romeo and Juliet” in which the final scene jumps forward fifteen years and we discover that the whole city has been hit by the plague, and practically all have died except the Prince, who then decides to marry lady Montague.
In the PBS production the gross dramatic effect was chosen over the actual story. Forster gives us a George Emerson who has some truly interesting things to say about the status of women and the way they are treated by men. He gives us a Cecil who can learn from Lucy even as she rejects him.
The book is, in fact, a far richer tale.
Since the novel concerns itself deeply with telling the truth and with seeing the truth, and then endeavoring to live that truth, it is unfortunate that the adapters preferred to turn it into a very simple tale indeed. And is that not a kind of lie, too?
on April 16th, 2008 at 1:16 am
I couldn’t agree with you more. This new PBS thing was a complete flop. The ending felt patched on, which it was, but worse—totally incoherent. What’s happening to PBS? Much more shoddy stuff like this season and they’ll be an obscure footnote to some bit of commercial crap, sadly. Yup, we need a few standards!
on April 16th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Thanks to you both, I’ll skip PBS and return to the source. MLou
on April 16th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Dear Mary Lou, Dear Cathy,
Your comments are all extremely pertinent.
PBS regularly asks for more money and then broadcasts material that is just as insulting to the viewer’s intelligence as any crass commercial station’s offerings. What we seem to be getting is the promise of quality without the content, like selling inferior coffee in elaborately-decorated mugs. They call this ‘Masterpiece Classic’ (like those shops that list coffees in tiny cups and call them ‘extra supremo grande’ or something similar) and there is little enough of the real masterpiece to detain us. This is ‘classics lite’, if it’s anything.
Perhaps they should rename the series ?
As ever, Allan
on April 19th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Do you prefer Distorted Classics or Masterpiece Ersatz?
MLou
on April 19th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Do you prefer Distorted Classics or Masterpiece Ersatz?
MLou
on April 19th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Dear Mary Lou,
Both titles are inspired - and accurate! I wonder if anyone at PBS is reading?
With a smile, Allan