Probably because it is so dated!
It has aged really badly. The whole sexual politics of it all seems so gauche and simplistic now. And I don't just mean from the point of view of the time it was set in, but from the time it was actually made (1997).
As I watched it, I remember really enjoying the book when it was published (Julian Barnes was considered a great writer in the 90s), but the way it has translated to the screen looks so incredibly naive and out of date. I say again, not based on the set period, but with regard to its actual release date. 1997 is not so very long ago, but this reads like a film from the 70s in terms of its sensibilities. Terribly two dimensional; the notion of a man in early middle age mired in suburban oblivion and reminded of his youth by an eternally immature old school friend.
It made me curious about this director's other work. Aside from "Boys from the black stuff" which was quite well liked, the rest his back catalogue is decidedly second rate TV fare.
Very surprised and disappointed at how little was made of an excellent first novel.
reply
share