another Andrew Davies


Have to wonder,


Does he write all the screen plays "over there?"



That being said, enjoyed the first episode, "over here."



reply

He does too many, I think, and has become somewhat formulaic. I feel that this adaptation suffered from his approach, as well as from over-compression. The romantic component has been emphasised over the politics, and the lingering impact of WW1 has been played up more. Robert is the only one of the main protagonists to have his back-story fully developed; Sarah and Joe have lost most of their histories or had them distorted. I suspect this is to make it appeal more strongly to the Jane Eyre/Mr Rochester-type fanbase.

The 1974 adaptation, by Stan Barstow, is much better.

Seingner Conrat, tot per vostr'amor chan
http://www.silverwhistle.co.uk/knightlife

reply

Yes, I would agree he does too many and echo what silverwhistle says about 'formulaic' and 'over-compressed'. Perhaps it's unfair to lump the blame entirely on him, the 3 part restriction I would guess was down to the BBC.

reply

As I understand from the discussions that were on the BBC board, they were originally supposed to have 4 episodes, but were reduced to 3 at fairly short notice. But even then… It should have been possible to do it so that 1 episode=1 year of time, instead of claiming that all the events happen in 6 months!

But I think Davies's preoccupations and ideas about the literary adaptation market show through: that everyone loves big sulky men on big sulky horses. No: even when I first got the book (05/08/1980 – I've now got my old copy from my parents', and it has my teenaged inscription and date in it!), I fell for the "pretty" Scots beanpole with curly hair and a kirkyard cough… ;-D

Seingner Conrat, tot per vostr'amor chan
http://www.silverwhistle.co.uk/knightlife

reply

Good points about Davies. He created some fine adaptations about a decade ago, then seemed to grow bored and formulaic in recent years; he seems to condescend to his viewers, as though they're too stupid to understand all the complexities of the original work, so he has to condense it all to pablum. It's not good to use the same person all the time, especially for such disparate projects. I've been watching many classic British series over the past few months, and each one proves it's possible to create excellent adaptations, either spread out over a few or 10-plus episodes. From Cousin Bette (Margaret Tyzack/Helen Mirren version) and Madame Bovary (Francesca Annis/Tom Conti version) to the utterly delightful Rumpole of the Bailey (which consisted of stand-alone hour-long episodes strung out across several years), these programs captivated me as a teen and continue to fascinate me after more than 30 years. We all would welcome a return to the golden age of storytelling.

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

reply

At least the older stuff is now available on DVD (although it's annoying that some of them, such as Shadow of the Tower) are released in the US before they appear here!).

I think, with Davies, there's a tendency to reduce everything to a sort of Mills-&-Boon formula, allowing 'romance' to dominate more complex threads, and overshadow the politics. I wonder, too, how much this is driven by the export market: to iron out more controversial aspects and emphasise sentimentality, to make series more anodyne to be saleable to a wide range of markets?

Seingner Conrat, tot per vostr'amor chan
http://www.silverwhistle.co.uk/knightlife

reply

I'm really starting to wonder. I got some cuttings on this adaptation on eBay. In an article in the Daily Mail (spit!), 20/02/11, Davies claims that "Winifred didn't give the cat a name" in the book, hence he called it 'Edgar'. But this is not true: Snaith's 'starring cat' is called Sir John Simon, one of many kittens of the late Selena. (They are listed in the cast-list at the beginning of the book.)

Also, I think he's spent too may years immersed in Austen-land. In his introduction to the tie-in paperback edition, he claims that "Robert Carne… would be the romantic hero of the book, if Winifred Holtby believed in romantic heroes" and compares him to Mr Knightley, "but the 1930s were not a good decade for the Knightleys of this world". He also claims that "The reader will of course immediately start to imagine a happy ending for the fiery young [?!] heroine and the 'big heavy handsome unhappy-looking man'…"

He clearly isn't aware that for some readers, the book provides something of a litmus-test in terms of values. I, for one, find it hard to imagine being friends with anyone who's a serious Sarah/Robert shipper. I remember discussing this with a schoolfriend when I was 15 and had first read the book, nearly 31 years ago! Joe (in many respects, the moral conscience-figure of the book) was/is definitely our pin-up boy, and I much prefer to think of Sarah taking the train up to Glasgow at the next school holidays!


Seingner Conrat, tot per vostr'amor chan
http://www.silverwhistle.co.uk/knightlife

reply

Well I'm part way through the 74 version (5 episodes) and have to say so far Robert is not the man I'd pick out for her (or anyone come to that) - he is completely up himself. He's getting much more screen-time than Joe but in the small amount of time Joe has on screen he's by far the better man in every way.

In the 2011 version Joe gets even less screen-time - very hard for a character to shine when he's sidelined to that degree.

Thanks for the article nod, I'll give that a read.

reply

Well I'm part way through the 74 version (5 episodes) and have to say so far Robert is not the man I'd pick out for her (or anyone come to that) - he is completely up himself.
Isn't he just?! Everything is always about him, in his mind.
He's getting much more screen-time than Joe but in the small amount of time Joe has on screen he's by far the better man in every way.
Exactly! I'd throw Joe over my shoulder in an instant! (And given his TB, he probably weighs so little, I daresay I could!) He's just so good, and not in a soppy way; courageous, in a non-showy way; and so adorably geeky and awkward.
In the 2011 version Joe gets even less screen-time - very hard for a character to shine when he's sidelined to that degree.
Yes. He lost his heroic back-story, too. I notice, also, that he barely gets mentioned at all in the articles by Davies. He was definitely wanting to pitch the story at the romance novel mind-set re: Robert.

The article was in the Mail on Sunday Review, 20/02/11, "Winifred Holtby! (…Winifred who?)". (Davies also seems to think no-one recalls or has the DVDs of the 1974 version!) I can send you a xerox of it, if you like.

Seingner Conrat, tot per vostr'amor chan
http://www.silverwhistle.co.uk/knightlife

reply

You're so kind silverwhistle, but I don't want to put you to any trouble. I did a spot of Googling, is this the article by any chance or is it another?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1358432/Winifred-Holtby---Wi nifred--Hes-Dickens-Thackeray-Austen-Now-TVs-premier-writer-reveals-li terary-heroine-latest-watch-Sunday-night-costume-drama-.html

A quote from the article:

Of course, viewers will be expecting this enmity to develop into love, especially when they see we've cast Anna Maxwell Martin and David Morrissey in the lead roles.

But this isn't Pride And Prejudice or Jane Eyre - Holtby wasn't into wish-fulfilment.

South Riding is more akin to George Eliot's Middlemarch - full of great dreams and aspirations, only some of which come to fruition.


I think the line about Holtby not being into wish fulfilment redeems him somewhat (although the article does back up what you've said about him not being overly familiar with the book). What do you think?

reply

Yes, that's the article: I had thought it might be behind a pay-wall online.

I think the line about Holtby not being into wish fulfilment redeems him somewhat (although the article does back up what you've said about him not being overly familiar with the book). What do you think?
Well, Davies says she's not going to give us the pay-off; but it's his idea that this is the romantic pairing the reader/viewer would wish to happen that alarms me. Why would one ever want to hope for such an incompatible relationship? It's a romance-fiction cliché that people who hate each other and have opposing values somehow 'belong together': it's one of the things for which I most despise the romance genre, because it's emotionally and psychologically dishonest. It's clear in the book that it's another of Sarah's gross mistakes with men (thinking with her knickers instead of her brain), on a par with Jan van Raalt in South Africa, with whom she ended up quarrelling over his racism; and that Robert regards it as simply one of his (many) one night stands. Even without the dodgy heart and the collapsing cliff, there was never, ever going to be a future in it. Sarah was deluding herself (again).

The cat's name mistake is pretty revealing, I think. All he needed to do was go through the cast list at the beginning of the book – the main animal characters are included in it!

Davies also has a rather romantic view of Winifred's relationship with Harry Pearson: "Ironically, it was then that Winifred realised she was in love with him, she remained so for the rest of her short life". Well, not exactly. It was more off than on. The death-bed proposal was something Vera had tried to set up because of her own need for a 'happy ending'. Winifred's relationship with Harry was pretty fraught. She felt she 'owed him' loyalty because they had been close from childhood, but he grew up to have values and beliefs that were incompatible with hers. She tried to move things on to a sexual level, but it went wrong (impotence?) – which inspired the Manchester scene. There's more on this in Marion Shaw's biography, The Clear Stream. Harry lived into the 1970s – hence, in Testament of Friendship, Vera had referred to him under the confusing pseudonym 'Bill' (confusing because there was a real Bill in Winifred's life – Bill Ballinger, whose proposal she turned down because of her failing health).

Seingner Conrat, tot per vostr'amor chan
http://www.silverwhistle.co.uk/knightlife

reply

I had a chuckle at Davies line "I often find myself writing scenes that the original author forgot to write.".... Forgot to write?

Re Robert & Sarah, I think the conflict between their values is what gives the story real backbone - she's drawn to him because of her own frailties, it gives the story drama but I agree it's certainly not anything anyone should wish for.



reply

I had a chuckle at Davies line "I often find myself writing scenes that the original author forgot to write.".... Forgot to write?
He can't be accused of modesty, that's for sure!

Mind, I suppose he means that there is a difference between narrating some information in a book, and showing it, as one has to in a dramatisation.
it gives the story drama but I agree it's certainly not anything anyone should wish for.
Exactly. The conflict makes for good drama, but it's not something to be regarded as desirable for either of them. I can't think of 2 people more likely to make each other wretchedly miserable.

I think the problem is the ridiculous 'romance fiction' trope of people hating each other at first sight, then having hot sex and, bingo! they're made for each other, and somehow the fact they have entirely opposing values & c doesn't matter. I simply can't believe in mutual antipathy as the basis for romance. If I hate someone, I hate them. If their values are incompatible, I may put up with them in circumstances where I have no choice (e.g. at work) but I wouldn't seek them out as a friend, let alone a lover. It makes no sense if you can't actually talk to or don't even like someone.

Seingner Conrat, tot per vostr'amor chan
http://www.silverwhistle.co.uk/knightlife

reply