MovieChat Forums > A Room with a View (2008) Discussion > Pale shadow of Merchant-Ivory version

Pale shadow of Merchant-Ivory version

posted 16 years ago by armstrongd_uk
20 replies | jump to latest

Watched this new version this evening - lovely pictures and soundtrack, as I'd expect, but the cast - especially the two young male leads - were so disappointingly inferior after the power of the Julian Sands/ Daniel Day Lewis/ Denholm Elliot characters in the Merchant Ivory version. In my opinion, the latter version's power came from the sheer presence and passion embodied by Mr Sands. While I did enjoy Timothy Spall a lot, and his performance was excellent, Denholm Elliot's portrayal was also such a memorable and moving part of the original.

In the final analysis, like Mr Davies wonderful version of Pride and Prejudice, you have to ask why remake absolute classics like these - but there are always new generations, and it will of course go on, and occasionally the remakes really do work. Room with a View 2007 is not, in my opinion, in that category.

[–] TinaChristina 16 years ago

I have to disagree, i liked the new version of a room with a view as it was quiet different from the movie, laurence fox was quiet charming and you could understand why Lucy would accept him whereas Daniel Day Lewis's portrayel of Cecil was so uptight and unattractive,you questioned why Lucy would entertain the idea of marrying him at all.I preferred Julian Sands but in the movie he didnt really get to flesh out his character but Rafe Spall's George had a lot more development and really had some great lines and was quiet funny as well. I also liked the ending and found it quiet poignant.Elaine Cassidy was amazing as Lucy Honeychurch, probably the best casting of the production.

[–] TinaChristina 16 years ago

I also thought that Davies was hinting Cecil might be gay

[–] Devon_Rex 16 years ago

Hardly hinting! It couldn't have been more obvious if he and Mr Beebe had snogged.

[–] lanouvelleheloise 16 years ago

I agree with armstrongd_uk. In the wake of this revival much has been said in the press about how Julian Sands was miscast in the Ivory version. I really cannot see why, I think his performance was full of passion and mystique and he had great chemistry with Helena Bonham Carter. Rafe Spall's interpretation was good but a little bit obvious (although that is Davies's fault not Spall's)...

The funny thing - which someone also felt in a previous thread - I really did not get repulsed by Cecil in this 2007 adaptation, if anything he comes across as a rather appealing guy - but perhaps Davies is hinting at Cecil having doubts over his sexuality ("the perfect bachelor") - that being the reason Mr. Beebe would identify with him?

http://monomaniadiaries.blogspot.com

[–] Chris Clazie 16 years ago

Apparently the casting of Rafe Spall,who I thought was very endearing in his portrayal of George Emerson,and his real life father Timothy,was much nearer the actual characters as they were written.You can imagine Rafe as a ticket office clerk at British Rail,whereas Sands was just too middleclass to be convincing.Rafe and Elaine Cassidy as the slowly defrosting Lucy Honeychurch were both excellent and the production had a more intimate feel than the movie.It was the ending that made it for me though.Well worth seeing.

[–] blueskies836 16 years ago

In my opinion, this was a terrible adaptation. Andrew Davis was in no way justified in claiming this adaptation was truer to the book than the Merchant-Ivory film, because hardly any of the dialogue in this one was taken from the book - all replaced with modern, trivialised, soap-opera dialogue - and many book scenes present in the film were missing here. I thought the performances of Sinead Cusack and Sophie Thompson couldn't compare to those of Judi Dench and Maggie Smith as Miss Lavish and Miss Bartlett - and Timothy Spall had none of the other actor's charm as old Mr Emerson.

I thought Rafe Spall had no charisma whatsoever as George Emerson. He clearly hadn't read the book, else he'd have been able to convey George's weariness with life and his deepness of character, as Julian Sands did. Spall's George just came across as a cocky school boy. Andrew Davis did nothing to help; all book-George's beautiful speeches, thoughtful remarks and desperate despair at Lucy's rejection after the second kiss are cut out. All that's left is his repeated little phrase, "you love me, you love me, you love me", stated to her with more arrogance than passion. I think Davis had taken it as a given that this 'sexiness' of attitude combined with a good-looking face and bod would bowl over Lucy and all the viewers at home - but I personally wanted to punch him. Never does Spall's/Davis' George truly extol Lucy's virtues or make any advance on the fact that he thinks she's 'lovely'. Any advance on loveliness, Mr Emerson? I want to say, after this is repeated several times through the production. Admittedly, this George does give the impression that he's more working-class than Sands; but he doesn't give the impression that he's at all good enough or worthy of Lucy, which is the more important consideration, after all.

So. Nothing of book-George is left here; those moments after the Italian's death, after George had picked her up and Lucy was trying to ask him not to tell anyone for appearances' sake - her behaviour is stated by E.M. Forster to repel him. George loves Lucy in spite of himself, as she does him, and Rafe Spall clearly did not understand or convey this for us. He should go back to acting school, or at least know and understand his material before he attempts another role.

And Laurence Fox! WHAT a mistake, casting him as Cecil Vyse! So blatantly unaristocratic and not stately. The only good thing about this whole, terrible butchery of a classic was Elaine Cassidy, who is clearly a brilliant actress and made a lovely Lucy. Everything else was terrible. But at least there's Merchant-Ivory.

[–] sal-91 16 years ago

Excellent post! And spot on! When George comes out with no shirt and says "we're in love!" with that leering grin, I was properly grossed out. Who would have said that back then? Ugh... AWFUL.

[–] joely_snowflake 16 years ago

absolutely! spot on blueskies836!

although, I have to say that although this was probably due to the script, I didn't feel the portayal of Lucy was at all correct. I'm not one for insisting film adaptations are word for word, scene for scene with the author on set, but I do think it is vital to capture the SPIRIT of the book and of the characters. Lucy in this version seemed to have three moods - quiet, angry and viciously playing the piano (something I think was overemphasised). She is famously in a muddle, but this just wasn't conveyed.

Also, the modernisation of the clothes and speech was not particularly successful as it made other aspects of the film awkward and jarring - the scene with the boys swimming in the lake and Lucy and George's first kiss seemed as if they had been plonked in there.

Although this was pretty to look at, it was not beautiful - there was none of the rich colours of Italy or the soft pastels of England - it was all goldy yellowy cream. With some wonderful actors and obviously a very expensive production, I was very disappointed.

ooh and also , I just remembered - the score was HIDEOUS!! it was bleak and gave the whole film a downbeat melancholy feel, squeezing all the sunny feelings of hope, happiness and love out of it.

[–] maxx_91-1 16 years ago

i thought all the performances were brilliant, Spall's George was endearing yet common - much more realistic than the highly romanticised original. HOwever i do feel miscasting took place - although he gave a good performance did anyone else feel that Freddy looked about 30 years old? having someone with 5 o clock shadow boouncing around with a ball at all times made him seem as if he had some sort of mental retardation, let alone all the sexual connotations of a young man asking another to go swimming nude - a younger actor would have aesthetically made much more sense.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Devon_Rex 16 years ago

//Quite unlike the Freddy Rupert Graves played whom I pretty much fell in love with the first time I saw the film.//

Glad I'm not the only one - he was adorable!

[–] raze-1 16 years ago

Just an FYI, (I haven't seen the production yet), the actor who played Freddy is listed as being born in '89, so he would have been 19 when the production was created.

[–] SirinJulia 16 years ago

I absolutely agree with you.
Thanks for putting my thoughts into words :)

Aspire to climb as high as you can dream

[–] alteanime 16 years ago

I so agree!
Neither Laurence Fox nor Rafe Spell were the right actors for this film.Maybe if they would have changed their roles,maybe Rafe would be a better Cecil and Laurence a better George.
For sure Laurence showed much more passion than Rafe did.
You wonder how Lucy and George can have sex like in the end. You do believe Lucy, her hunger and feelings for him are always clearly shown, not like Helena´s Lucy.

Elaine was amazing like Sophie and Timothy!
The music, a bit Vangelis-like I find, was beautiful.
I liked the idea of Lucy 10 years later as a widow in Florence again.
btw
Did Elaine play the piano herself?

[–] wfpetriejnr 16 years ago

This was appalling - why not produce something original rather than molesting classic literature.

Oh, and Rafe Spall uttered supposedly romantic lines with all the finesse of an child without a filter system.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Imhotep77 16 years ago

In and of itself, this version is bad. If you compare it with Merchant-Ivory's, then this is really, really, dreadful. The leads have no charisma whatsoever. Given that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, personally I find all 3 leads (Lucy, George, Cecil) very unattractive (border on ugly). The supporting parts have none of the star power, that's a given since this is a TV version. But it suffers so badly in comparison. The cinamatography is flat and dull. The pacing is rushed yet doesn't move the story along. The ending is just atrocious. Totally different in tone up until that point; I thought I taped over it somehow. Skip it, there is no reason to watch it. I wish I could.

[–] rob-949 16 years ago

What was the point of remaking this pale and lifeless version of the Merchant Ivory classic? Many scenes and dialog are much like in the 1985 Merchant Ivory version, but are absolutely lifeless here, missing the witty humor, pace, and joie d' vivre of the 1985 film.

This is like taking a beautiful person and replacing him with a pod person who looks similar but has no soul/no inner life.

The only thing it did slightly better was capture what was going on with Lucy's sexual awakening when exposed to the sensual statuary and postcards in the piazza.

This seems a wasted effort on the part of all involved.

[–] SnoozeAlarm 12 years ago

>>> joie d' vivre

de

http://tinyurl.com/cjsy86c

[–] writerchick89 10 years ago

I much prefer the Merchant Ivory version. I'm watching this one for the second time to compare, as it's been a while since the 1st viewing, and I've watched the Merchant Ivory version more recently. I think the actors in it are perfect, and I especially love Helena Bonham Carter as Lucy, as much as I loved her as Helen in Howards End.

Not all who wander are lost.--J.R.R. Tolkien