MovieChat Forums > A Dorothy L. Sayers Mystery (1987) Discussion > Disappointing.

Disappointing.

posted 18 years ago by fairbairn
5 replies | jump to latest

The central performances in this were excellent, as expected. No problems there. However, I was bitterly disappointed with this adaptation of D L Sayers excellent novel. While I realise that some cuts must be made to almost every book to make a good screenplay, I think that too much was cut from this, and that most of the seminally important, beautifully written love-story was sacrificed inexplicably in favour of the "crime" story, which is almost irrelevant, and in the book serves only as a vehicle for the development of Harriet's self-understanding and self-forgiving in the beloved venue of her Oxford Alma Mater and in the erudite, loving and patient company of Peter Wimsey.

Come and see the violence in the system!...Help help, I'm being repressed!

[–] TinaRhea 17 years ago

I agree that it's a disappointment, especially since the producers gave an extra hour to Have His Carcase, by far the weakest of the three books, rather than to Gaudy Night, which needs more time, and then spent part of their severely limited time in flashbacks to the previous episode. It's a pity to lose the subplots, including Peter's nephew, and so many fine scenes. Alas, the scene on the river could not possibly be done properly except when one can read Harriet's thoughts. Bits do remain of the best of the book, the atmosphere of academic peace and the conversations about what one should make of one's life; I hope the film inspires more people to read the book itself. What they did film, however, is very well done, and excellently cast. I am very fond of Miss Devine, and it was a delightful surprise to find that I am also very fond of the actress who plays her here. The severe cutting is a disappointment, but not what was made of the time given.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fairbairn 17 years ago

Lovely series of books though, and ripe for another TV adaptation, this time with decent lighting and a script written with empathy and understanding. Not too much mucking about with the story, and careful observation of Miss Sayers' restraint and delicacy in the love thread, which is surely one of the finest and most erotically charged of the 20th century.

The temptation to obliterate anything remotely intellectually challenging must be resisted. Especially in Gaudy Night, which must of necessity have a rareified, ultra-highbrow tone - these women had the finest brains of their generation - and the whole tale is imbued with the idea and ideal of the pursuit of excellence. The sad fact that most of us no longer have Latin and Ancient Greek and may not be familiar with Bacon or Herodotus is no excuse to expunge any of Miss Sayers' references. I love that feeling of bobbing along in her wake, congratulating myself when I catch some references and knowing that there's so much more there to be discovered.

Can't fault the casting in the 1986 series, however, and I haven't a clue who I'd cast as Harriet and Peter, Edward Petherbridge and Harriet Walter having done sterling work with generally ropey material.

Addendum, BTW, thst's an interesting point you make about the river afternoon, TR, but DLS paints such a vivid picture of the events of that day that I'm sure any decent scriptwriter and an imaginative director could do a great deal with it, without resorting to embarrassing musical clichés and voiceovers. Harriet Walter is a seriously great actress who was criminally wasted in the TV adaptation; it's so frustrating to see her piddling about with the bowdlerised script and the lacklustre direction. She and Edward P could could have done so much just with a glance or a restrained gesture- for crying out loud, the direction is set out with crystal clarity by DLS herself!

Compare this TV series with the roughly contemporaneous "Mapp and Lucia" which was unalloyed joy from start to finish; costumes, set, lighting (grr!), sound, casting, and of course direction were top notch, and above all the fabulous script, which was wisely kept very close to the original books by EF Benson. I console myself with this, and hope that poor DLS is not spinning too uncomfortably in her grave.

Come and see the violence in the system!...Help help, I'm being repressed!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] flash-104 8 years ago

most of the seminally important, beautifully written love-story was sacrificed inexplicably in favour of the "crime" story

Perversely, in the opening of Strong Poison Philip Broadley makes the opposite mistake, intensifying the love story by making Lord Peter into a blithering idiot whose belief is driven by physical appearance—rather than a detective intelligently following up on Miss Climpson’s unpopular but well-informed conclusion. To do this, he needs a preposterous coincidence, which should have given him a clue that he was making a huge mistake.