Cecyl Vise


****May contain spoilers!!!!****

I will start by saying that I hated this version. All the characters were “wrong”: Mr Beeb as a closeted gay, Charlotte devoid of any humanity, Freddie a simpleton, Mrs Honeychurch a nonentity, etc.
The Oscar (or should I say the Razzie) goes to Laurence Fox!!! I normally ADORE Laurence Fox, but in this production he is ghastly!!!!
First of all, he is far too sexy and attractive to play a stiff Edwardian man (why would any woman choose simpleton George over this dandified moody sex god?). Secondly, he looked totally disinterested in the proceedings, mumbling rather than acting his lines.
The worst piece of miscasting ever!!!!!

reply

I agree, I think Laurence Fox is a very talented actor and I loved him in Becoming Jane (I actually liked his understated role far more than James McAvoy's Lefroy) but here he seemed completely off and not at all like the book's misanthrope Cecil.

http://monomaniadiaries.blogspot.com

reply

Yeah i fancied Cecil more than George and surely thats not right? Not because he was "fitter" but he just had more charisma and i think Lucy seemed better suited to him.
Mind you, i didn't even like this Lucy :(

reply

You know what, I thought exactly the same thing, why would any girl chose George over Laurence. I too disliked the portrayal of George, no charisma at all. Thought his acting was very wooden too. Lucky Billie Piper I say!

reply

I couldnt help but get the impression that Vise was being portrayed as being a closeted gay man. There was the kiss in Rome that seemed too awkward for him, the that Mr.Beebe compared him to himself saying he wasnt the marrying kind, and then when the part during the breaking of the bethrothal when vise made some reference indicating that his love for her wasnt all it should be. I dont know. This adaption was way out there. Mr. Beebe was being portrayed as a gay man? Yes? No?. I read the book a long time ago and dont remember any reference to any of that, but I was younger then, maybe wouldnt have noticed it if it slammed me in the face. What does everyone else think. Also. Just for fun, I was in Florence last summer and saw them filming this. My children noticed Spell from Harry Potter. I boldly went up and asked them what they were filming. It was pretty exciting.

reply

Definitely showing Beebe as homosexual, and Vyse too but not even knowing it. The book does make references to men who should not marry, and the awkward only kiss. Knowing that Forster was homosexual, one can speculate that he was hinting at it.

reply

But in the book... was Vise implicated to be a gay man? I read the book a long time ago but not THAT long ago. I hope I didnt miss something that important.

reply

I think the implication is that he's more asexual than homosexual, but it's been a long time for me too.

reply

Just reading the book now and, yes, Cecil comes off as asexual, not at all homosexual.

Freddie thinks, when he finds out Lucy is engaged to marry Cecil, "But at the back of his [Freddie's] brain there lurked a dim mistrust. Cecil praised one too much for being athletic...Cecil made one talk in his way, instead of letting one talk in one's own way...And Cecil was the kind of fellow who would never wear another fellow's cap."

Shortly thereafter, Forster makes Cecil enamored more of ideals than realities; Lucy is for Cecil the romantic ideal of a medieval woman, "like a woman of Leonardo da Vinci's, whom we love not so much for herself as for the things she will not tell us."

And George says (in the novel) to Lucy about Cecil, "You cannot live with Vyse. He's only for an acquaintance. He is for society and cultivated talk. He should know no one intimately, least of all a woman."

So the upshot of all this seems to be that Cecil is of himself and belonging to himself, not capable of being a proper friend or lover.

Edit: How could I have forgotten--Cecil actually asks Lucy if he can kiss her, and in the most awkward way (the asking and the kiss)!

reply

The only thing that could get me to watch this travesty for even a minute would be the promise of Laurence Fox as Cecil, and seeing as how his performance is roundly trashed on this thread, I'll be glad to leave this tragic waste of TV resources alone.

http://saucybetty.blogspot.com

reply

I know it's been a long time since anybody's posted here but but I just saw this on TV and had to say something. I didn't get the impression that Fox was being trashed on this thread. The problem is with the casting. Everyone (me definitely included) seems to think that Fox is too attractive to play Cecil. He can't really help being sexy anbd charismatic. I kept picturing Spall and Fox changing roles. I think it could have worked much better.

reply

Agree that they should have swapped roles, but then you have the problem that father and son no longer look like one another.

reply

I'm so stuck on Laurence Fox he could never act badly in anything. Seriously, I thought he was great in this film.

reply