Why a new Helen - The Inspector Lynley Mysteries (2001) Discussion

[–] middlemiriam 17 years ago

I guess Lesley Vickerage wanted to move on or was tied up in other projects. Saw her last in P.D. James "Murder Room" This Helen seems too sunny and level headed I cannot imagine her reacting to the marraige problems the way Helen did in previous episodes. Besides Vickerage always seemed a little neurotic and I often wondered why Lynley was so besotted by her. She was from his 'class' of people though.

reply

[–] thatsnumberwang 17 years ago

Besides Vickerage always seemed a little neurotic and I often wondered why Lynley was so besotted by her.

I totally agree. I couldn't tell if it was the way his character was written (poorly) or my personal feelings about the actress playing (old) Helen, but I could never understand why Lynley was practically obsessed with Helen when it was pretty clear she didn't give a fig for him. The new Helen seems bluff and brusque. Unfortunately for us the audience, it may take some time for them to mesh. As of right now they have zero chemistry (I realize the series is all but canceled. I'm just writing this from the perspective of the American audience that still has a few episodes that are unseen.)

http://saucybetty.blogspot.com

reply

[–] trpdean 15 years ago

I always thought that Helen as played by Leslie Vickerage was one of the least appealing characters I've ever seen in movies or television - terribly ugly, wholly uninterested in her boyfriend/fiance - deeply obnoxious, consistently whining, always catered to by her boyfriend (Lynley) who seemed slavishly attentive.

I've not read the books, but I thought we were to understand that Lynley's utter blindness to her awfulness was the great weakness in his character (or else that one day we'd learn of Helen's blackmail of Lynley or a family member that made him solicitous, and always fearful lest she get out of his sight).

Helen as played by Vickerage is a true wretch - not someone anyone would want to spend ten minutes with. If that was NOT the impression the creators wish to give us, then of course one would have expected they'd have had a new Helen as soon as Vickerage began to play the character - perhaps they just took terribly long to get us a Helen we don't grit our teeth to hear - and hide our eyes to see.

reply

[–] angelofvic 17 years ago

I don't know. I hate the new Helen. I loved the old Helen -- she was perfect, beautiful, and a perfect match for the moody broody Lynley.

Ugh. This is a terrible choice.

Looks like all they were going for was similar haircolor.
. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] dottie70438 17 years ago

Theolsd Helenfit the part well.She was supposed to look and feel that way.n She had just lost their baby andwas in the post partumdepression. She isa goodactress.This new oneis too frivolous and gay

reply

[–] angelofvic 17 years ago

I don't like the new one at all. Complete 180 degrees from the old one. Why do that to an already-established character?

If they want Lynley to have a love interest, introduce a completely new person. They don't have to follow the novels.

Anyway, if somehow the series continues, I hope they either dispense with Helen altogether, or get an actress that is as wistful and dreamy and sensitive and poetic and pensive as the old Helen was.

. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] ryanoconnor-1 17 years ago

Elizabeth George has said in interviews that she did not like the old Helen because she was not the same as in her novels. I don't know if George's comments influenced the producers.

reply

[–] angelofvic 17 years ago

Really? I wonder how she was different from the novels, and whether the new one is any more like her?

I don't see much chemistry between the new one and Parker, but that may be because they are pretending they have all this shared history when in fact she's a substitute actress. Plus, I started disliking her when I learned she was supposed to be Helen -- before that, I gave her the benefit of the doubt.

She doesn't seem very likeable or romantic or vulnerable, or someone who could be as emotional as Lynley.

But again, this is all talk in the dark, if the series really is over. Maybe like someone said, Granada TV could pick it up.

But I still don't like the new Helen and I think it would take a lot to get me to like her ... like Parker stop acting like she's the bee's knees -- we haven't even gotten to know her yet!
. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] maryborrege 17 years ago

(Warning. Previous eposode spoiler below.)
How could anyone "like" the old Helen? She was sulky, surly and insensitive to the needs of anyone save herself. As it happened her husband lost their baby too. Thanks to self absorbed Helen he not only lost his child but his wife too and in one feld swoop. Helen just turned tail and took off without notice. Some love. Lynley didn't lose much. His needy attachment to a woman like Helen is a bit masochistic.

In the book Helen was not quite the sourpuss as depicted in the series. (She was an interior decorator, not in forensics.) The catch was Helen and Lynley were both indecisive about the other and could never get their act together as a couple. Helen resented her husband's work, but then why marry a detective?
As a couple Lynley and Helen weren't too bright. It became an irritant for many readers. All things considered--the new Helen is a breath of fresh air.
At least so far.

If Lynley has been canceled it will be missed. It wasn't as well written as Rumpole of the Bailey, the early Inspector Dalglish, or Morse, but it was better than most of the cheaply produced stuff they are putting on TV today.

reply

[–] Virginiana 16 years ago

In the book Helen was not quite the sourpuss as depicted in the series.(She was an interior decorator, not in forensics.)

Ummm ... not even close.

In the books, Helen is LADY Helen Clyde, daughter of an earl and, as such, from Lynley's own social class. She has inherited money and therefore does not need to work. When we first meet her she is rather spoiled and self-centered, very interested in fashion (has a passion for high-heeled shoes which she wears no matter how much they hurt her feet) and travels a good deal, seeming to spend a lot of her time engaging in the aimless round of pleasure of the wealthy socialite. Elizabeth George has described her character as an "ageing It Girl", an expression which doesn't translate well to the US but which any Brit will understand. Beneath her flightiness, though, Helen proves in the very first novel that she has a good heart and cares about others, regardless of their social class.

As the series moves on Helen gets a bit more serious -- she starts working part-time as an assistant to Simon St. James, Lynley's best friend and a leading forensic pathologist. Her work falls in the category of clerical help/lab assistant, though, not trained scientific analyst. She still remains lovably flighty and indecisive, though -- there's a memorable scene in one book where she can't figure out how to operate a microwave.

She is somewhat reluctant to marry Tommy, whose moodiness can be unnerving and because she fears losing her identity as his wife, and after she does she has major identity crisis when she tries to select wallpaper to redecorate some rooms in their London house. She feels inadequate to the task of committing to a decision, unsure of her own taste. Ergo, she is not not NOT an interior decorator!

But I agree with you that Helen in the novels is far from a sourpuss. She's flighty, indecisive, and spoiled, sure, but she's also very loving and patient with Tommy's faults. The way she's been depicted in the TV shows -- the confident professional scientists -- is a million miles from the Lady Helen of the books. No wonder Elizabeth George disliked the portrayal!

reply

[–] beat 16 years ago

----------
How could anyone "like" the old Helen? She was sulky, surly and insensitive to the needs of anyone save herself.
----------
you're right: helen was really annoying, i couldn't stand her. but the actress was perfect, and that's why the 2nd helen was a really bad choice, she just didn't have anything to do with the first one. really odd choice.

reply

[–] jojo-acapulco 12 years ago

I think they had to find a new Helen because the old Helen was the least appealing character in this or almost any other show. I always wondered why Lynley was attracted to a bitchy neurotic self-absorbed psychologist when the far more appealing Havers was right there at his side.

In the books, Helen is a pleasant, elegant, and very attractive woman who fit Lynley's life style much better than Havers could, and the thing made sense.

The departure of the old Helen is, for me, a breath of fresh air in a series that was getting moldy.

reply

[–] Moscoso1967 10 years ago

I agree with many posters here, Helen as played by Lesley Vickerage was indeed miserable and whiny and IMO neither beautiful nor particularly feminine (as someone had claimed). I think she's one of the most annoying characters in a British crime/drama series I've ever seen. She and the whole annoying, almost soap-opera like drama about Lynley's and Helen's relationship is the main reason which spoiled this series for me and why I prefer other shows like "Lewis" or "Inspector George Gently". Compared to Vickerage's Helen I even prefer Joyce Barnaby by a mile.

I couldn't stand her right from the very first episode she was in and it never seemed convincing and especially not understandable why Lynley was so besotted with her as she had absolutely nothing going for her.
There are/were more believable romances and appealing love-interests, like Lewis and Laura Hobson (they really got a great chemistry, plus IMHO Holman is a better actress than Vickerage), Sam Tyler and Annie in "Life On Mars" or Richard and Camille in "Death in Paradise" (what a pity Ben Miller quit the show).

reply

[–] tedtunes 16 years ago

Funny you should say that about the new hair coor - I said to my friend who's also a big fan - Why on earth couldn't they at least have got the new Helen to darken her hair - the old Helen was very dark with severe short hair, this one's nearly blond with long pretty hair - I sometimes wonder who's running things on these series, really I do!

reply

[–] zarembazwoman 16 years ago

Beautiful???? I thought she was homely, sour and dour. I never could understand why the Lynley character was so mad about her. I couldn't stand her. I liked the new Helen, so I was devastated when she was killed.

reply

[–] wimsattm 16 years ago

Lesley Vickerage was such an awful actress that I was actually glad to see her leave the series. The only worse actor in the series is Nathaniel Parker, whom a reviewer in a British newspaper calls 'Television's most turgid detective.'

reply

[–] trpdean 16 years ago

I don't want to be unkind about the actress, but I disagree, angelofvic, quite honestly I find the old Helen truly ugly. I'm watching the series now - from start to finish (by renting the DVDs) and am just amazed at this Helen. No, I haven't read the books which may explain why Lynley chose someone who so dislikes him, is so neurotic, and is so ugly - but from the television programs, it doesn't make sense.

reply

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

Completely disagree, so I'll agree to disagree.

. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] wireshock 17 years ago

Why they changed actresses is unknown (to us) and there is no "official" word that I know of. It APPEARED that they had simply written the character out of the series. A number of episodes followed Vickerage's last appearance in which "Tommy" was distraught about the state of his marriage, but given his other problems (like practically being thrown out of the force) it largely seemed the plots had moved on. When she returned in "Natural Causes" they pretty much glossed over her selfish disappearance, and Tommy greets her back as if he hadn't suffered at all.

My guess is that Vickerage decided not to continue and was thus "written out" of subsequent episodes. This would explain why it was never announced she had left--they may have hoped they would eventually be able to get her back after a season or so. Having the couple continue to be estranged was therefore a workable solution--until Elizabeth George gave Helen a more significant "fate" in one of her novels.

That is why I think they brought the character back, so they could sync it back up with the books. That is what they essentially have done, for those who've seen more recent episodes which have yet to air in the U.S. But doing that only meant, without giving everything away, that THIS new Helen is destined to disappear from the series anyways. So why bother? Perhaps because the BBC get another dramatic episode ending (which EVERY episode seems to demand these days!) out of the character...

As for the Vickerage characterization, it is true that Elizabeth George found it appalling, but the relationship between Helen and Tommy in the BBC series was the BEST thing--apart from the Havers/Lynley tensions, of course--about it. Both Vickerage and Parker played deeply flawed characters; watching them eat away at each other was the MAIN plotline of the series. That's why most viewers find the new Helen, who lacks the edgy angst of the old one, so lackluster and disappointing.

At least the boring replacement isn't the MAIN character, which is how I feel about Martin Shaw as the "new" Dalgliesh. Sheesh! What a boring Dalgliesh! Losing Roy Marsden was like losing Connery as Bond. He had DEFINED the role.

reply

[–] nastyrambova123 17 years ago

I personally did NOT like the "old" Helen, as played by Leslie Vickerage. She really was NOT like the "Helen" in the novels, and there was something about her portrayal of "Helen" that was really unlikable, and personally, I did not care for Helen and Tommy's relationship... I believe that here in the states the programs are behind as shown in the UK, so I do not know the fate of the new storyline. All the problems aside, and with that said, this "new Helen" is even more strange because she seems to have come back into Tommy's life with a "happy-go-lucky" attitude and is very open to re-kindling her marriage. That was part of the problems within their relationship, though...the inability to commit; the disappointments--this "new" Helen seems like a totally different person and she doesn't seem suitable for Tommy, either. The "Helen" storyline should be written out--frankly, I would like to see Linley and Havers have a go! I'm interested to see where the storyline is going, anyway...I like Havers and would like to see her have a life.

And as for Martin Shaw in the "Dalgliesh" role...I could not agree more with the previous post...Roy Marsden IS Dalgliesh and Shaw's portrayal is almost like a totally different character. Anyway, I thought P.D. James was going to get Cordelia Gray and Adam Dalgliesh "together"!!! What a pair those two would make! I mean, even my kids liked the original Dalgliesh, Marsden...when your kids like something or someone, that usually says it all!

Kat Ramone

reply

[–] ebhead 17 years ago

They've finally just begun showing the newest series (last night here in Tucson, AZ, USA). I was so thrilled that it was back on. I watch it for Nathaniel as he's so amazingly gorgeous. They have him looking even "hipper" now. they showed two here last night, but out of order, so instead of picking up where the last season left off, they began with him already being friends with Helen again. they spoke of it before showing her, so I was shocked to see that new lady, who neither looks, sounds, nor acts like Helen. As disappointed as I am that it's not the old Helen, I could accept her potentially IF:

1. she were as pretty as Helen. I'm glad if Lynley can look beyond looks, but part of why he was attracted to Helen, was presumably her looks. This new one is so unattractive, that I don't see him going for her. Even her voice is annoying, as Helen. But even still I could probably accept her if

2. she acted like the old Helen. At least on May to December the new Zoe acted like the old one, well mostly anyway. as you all have pointed out this new Helen acts nothing like the old one.

I have not read the novels. I do believe those of you who have though. so, the idea that the writers are trying to match up the novels with the show makes sense, but why start now? How can they expect us to accept that Helen would act the way on the show that the new Helen does? It's just too unbelievable and that's the nail in the new helen's coffin, in my opinion.

I still love him though and I like his relationship with Havers, so I'll keep watching for as long as it's still on.

reply

[–] Atomica00 17 years ago

Wow, you are an arse and VERY superficial. I was really enjoying reading this thread because of everyones mature analysis of the 2 Helens in terms of how the actress' have portrayed them, but you had to ruin that.

1. "she were as pretty as Helen. I'm glad if Lynley can look beyond looks, but part of why he was attracted to Helen, was presumably her looks. This new one is so unattractive, that I don't see him going for her. Even her voice is annoying, as Helen. But even still I could probably accept her if"

What the hell does the new Helen's look and voice have to do with the actual character? That is a stupid and childish point. I personally didn't like the 1st Helen because of how she behaved during the baby arc. She didn't give the man a chance and I really doubted (and hoped) they would get back together. The 2nd Helen is a much happier person and I like how she's actually made me give a fig if they get back together. Their chemistry isn't as strong as compared to the 1st Helen, but apples and oranges.

2. "she acted like the old Helen. At least on May to December the new Zoe acted like the old one, well mostly anyway. as you all have pointed out this new Helen acts nothing like the old one."

Has it occured to you that if she acted like the old Helen, people would complain that she's unoriginal and copying the original actress? Or that maybe the producers told her to portray Helen that way? If it's true what another poster said about George (author) not liking the original portrayal of Helen, that could be a sway for the producers to change her up.

Hoenstly? If you really find her unattractive and annoying, stop watching.

reply

[–] angelofvic 17 years ago

Well, in fact the old Helen was quite beautiful and slim and feminine, the "glamour/fashion" profile, as they say in the business, and could have been a runway model; whereas the new Helen has a very boxy face, mannish mannerisms, and is fairly matronly. No need to get up in arms about the poster above stating the obvious. I'm sure she or he is not the only person who missed the beauty and femininity of the old Helen.

. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] Brennan-8 17 years ago

The new Helen is much more beautiful and warm, and seemed to actually *like* Lynley, whereas the old Helen I thought was just a total shrew. It was sad & puzzling to watch Lynley grovel to such a cold and bitchy woman who couldn't have cared less for him, IMO.

reply

[–] hereinthedark 17 years ago

The actress who plays the new Helen, Catherine Russell, is in real life the daughter of "Mr. Rumbold" on "Are You Being Served" (Nicholas Smith) - no joke, check it out. Under the circumstances, I think she really lucked out in the genes department!

reply

[–] tedtunes 16 years ago

Oh yes, I can actually see the likeness now you mention it (a bit anyway) - but she didn't last long, did she - only two episodes and then....

reply

[–] gabriela_zayas 9 years ago

Helen as played by Vickerage is a horrible character. It seems they could not find a least attractive actress (to say it mildly) than this woman. Awful, ugly, zero appeal.

reply

[–] Atomica00 17 years ago

I definitely don't see what you do, because she seemed very feminine to me. So it's not obvious, as you say.

reply

[–] wimsattm 16 years ago

I saw neither beauty nor feminity in the 'old' Helen, and I'm glad she's gone. But 'De Gustibus Non Est Disputandam,' and so on.

reply

[–] wimsattm 16 years ago

I completely agree with you and other people who have said that Lesley Vickerage was a near disaster as Helen. Her replacement was not much better. You are correct in saying that the character of Helen should be written out of the series. For what it's worth, I DETEST Martin Shaw as Adam Dalgliesh, but Roy Marsden has aged a great deal, as anyone who saw him in a 2007 episode of 'Foyle's War' can attest, so perhaps a newer, younger actor was needed for the part. That said, however, I still dislike Martin Shaw.

reply

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

the relationship between Helen and Tommy in the BBC series was the BEST thing--apart from the Havers/Lynley tensions, of course--about it. Both Vickerage and Parker played deeply flawed characters; watching them eat away at each other was the MAIN plotline of the series. That's why most viewers find the new Helen, who lacks the edgy angst of the old one, so lackluster and disappointing.

Yes, couldn't agree more. Although, when Vicarage did leave, they did manage to find new interest and new plotlines with just Havers and Lynley (mostly work plotlines). But yes, you characterized our initial disappointment over the new Helen well. That is, until "In the Blink of an Eye," in which she came across as very sympathetic.

. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] uamc_alto2 16 years ago

I liked the Helen in the very first episode "A Great Deliverance". Lesley Vickerage's Helen was miserable and whiny, and I couldn't stand her. I haven't seen the new Helen, though!

reply

[–] halavana 16 years ago

Must agree with you here. Emma Felding was, IMO, the best of the lot. Too bad she was only in one episode. She had the wit and kindness of the book Helen, though she also was a CID profiler instead of Simon St. James's assistant. She was also the most attractive of the 3, again IMO. I could see Lynley falling for her more so than for either of the others.

reply

[–] greenegg 8 years ago

Thanks for finally mentioning Emma Fielding. She was my favorite of all the Helens. Why would they choose three actresses who looked so different; they might at least have tried to get a similar hair color or style. To go from long, curly red hair to short, dark straight hair to someone who was blonde seems absurd.

Vickerage seemed pretty lifeless after Fielding's witty, lively Helen. She also seems older.

Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops! 

reply

[–] papyrus beetle 15 years ago

Bless her heart, this actress is HORRIBLY cast, and just about ruined this last season for me. She looks, dresses, talks, a generation OLDER than Lynley!
The orginal Helen (Leslie Vickerage) was a perfect match in every way for him.

"Do what they say,Shirl--they've got guns!"-VIOLENT YEARS

reply

[–] trpdean 15 years ago

"The orginal Helen (Leslie Vickerage) was a perfect match in every way for him".
But she was really ugly and really mean and really whining all the time - and I don't think of Lynley that way.

reply

[–] parunach 15 years ago

While Emma Fielding was the best of the 3 Helens, I can understand why she left after one episode. She was too talented to play third place actor in this series.

reply

[–] il-silenzio-morira 15 years ago

Lesley left Lynley because she was pregnant and wanted to enjoy motherhood.

Here is an official part that Nathaniel wrote himself 3 years ago:

"Last night I found myself sitting with my new Helen. Cathering Russell is playing Helen in our new series. This may come to a surprise to many, but the fantastic Lesley Vickerage is no longer with us on the series. In fact, she is enjoying motherhood for the very first time. Great addition for the world, sad loss for Lynley. We will miss her."

This was written in September 2005

reply

[–] naveron 15 years ago

I've been reading the Lynley books (I had seen the series first). The truth is that neither the book Helen nor the TV Helen are very appealing characters. Yes, Helen is supposed to be beautiful and aristocratic. But she treats Lynley terribly. So to me it doesn't matter that Lesley Vickerage was such a poor choice because Helen is just not a nice character.

reply

[–] fanaticita 13 years ago

I'm just on season 2 of the series. . . when did Lynley and Helen get married??

reply

[–] aussiegirl10 13 years ago

I actually prefer the new Helen. The old one was boring, bitchy and not very loving.

reply

[–] auctionmaestra 12 years ago

I agree. I thought Lesle Vickerage was woefully miscast as Helen. Really unattractive character, incomprehensible that they would be together. Catherine Russell is much better, but the character herself, as written, is very unsympathetic.

reply

[–] oakcourt 12 years ago

I'm watching the series all the way through courtesty of Netflix. Helen and Lynley are just mismatched and I think Lesley Vickerage portrayed that well. The new Helen looks very jolly hockeysticks that is totally different to Lesley's portrayal of her. Just off topic I thought the one ep that Liza Tarbuck was in she was great, quite dry with a big sense of humour and I get the impression the new Helen is like that. Lynley hasn't got one! Barbara has blossomed which I'm glad to see and Sharon Small has such a lovely face I like to see her smile more. Like another poster I initially started to watch as I though Nathaniel Parker hugely handsome (superficial I know but...) but the series has really grown on me and I like his and Barbara's relationship.

reply

[–] Cathy26 (1) 10 months ago

I’m late watching this but I love it. Just never saw the chemistry between Tommy & Helen. She was so distant, sulky, solitary. Never understood why he was so in love with her. Then they changed the actress…..total turn-around from the original but I don’t see him with her either. I hoped she would just go away and divorce him. He’s better than that. He doesn’t deserve the hurt or the personality change. I hope for Tommy and Barbara but I imagine that’s hopeless. I’m only on S5E4. JMO

reply