I felt so sad for the man she spurned, he would have made a great suitor for her, but she, like most people, want what they can't have.
I think book-fans can be divided into Sarah/Joe shippers and Sarah/Robert shippers. I've been a Joe-fan since I first read the book nearly 31 years ago. He's even more loveable in the book: a bit geeky and socially awkward, but compassionate, and with a seriously heroic past, ruining his health working as a union organiser among Black miners in South Africa (which this adaptation dropped completely). His wife is also
completely dead. And he's handsome - tall, thin, "pretty", with "curling ruddy hair". In fact, I'd say he's better-looking than Robert, who's described as looking like Mussolini-but-with-hair! He's also just a couple of years younger than her, whereas Robert is a good 12 years older. He's perfect for Sarah, but she only sees him as a friend, probably at least in part because of his health - he has TB.
As it was, I never warmed up to her, seeing her as a bit of a brat, and at the age she must have been considering she mourned for 20 years for someone else (according to Sam's statement) she must have been an older woman and not a girl which her looks seem to indicate. The war had been over for more than 20 years, yet she looked to be in her mid twenties to me. Her character must have been somewhere between 37-40 considering the age a girl would be engaged to someone before he went off to war. But I was sleepy so I might have missed out a bit on her explanation of her fiance that died in the war. I would have like more background on her than we got. I might have to read the book now, but hate to since I know the ending now.
You need to, because a lot of this was changed, and also because there are lots of other characters and whole storylines that were simply omitted.
Sarah is about 39 (but young-looking) at the start of the book (and the actress is in her mid-30s, so was not badly cast), and the action runs from 1932-35, so she's in her early 40s when it ends.
In the book, the student friend, Roy, who was killed in the war was not "her great love": just the first of 3 fiances and a number of lovers. She has a fairly 'fast' past, in fact. She has tended to go for unsuitable men: dominant/authoritarian types, but then, once in a relationship, she doesn't like being dominated. She was engaged to an Afrikaaner farmer, Jan, with whom she broke over his racism, and then to an MP, Ben, who wanted her to sacrifice her career for his and wasn't amused when she suggested it might be better to be his mistress instead!
She's quite well-drawn psychologically: reminds me a great deal of a woman I used to know, who was, like Sarah, the child of a violent alcoholic (Sarah's father had lamed her sister by dropping her as a child) and had similar issues to Sarah with men: lots of unsatisfactory relationships with 'wrong' men, and took until middle-age to realise she needed a good, steady one. (And with Sarah, the book ends with a possibility still in the air - if she gets a move on with a reply, and gives poor Joe something to hope and live for... He's ill, but he could last for years.)
But, speaking personally, I'd have gone for Joe like a shot! I can't stand Robert.
Seingner Conrat, tot per vostr'amor chanhttp://www.silverwhistle.co.uk/knightlife
reply
share
GaelicLass
13 years ago
My comments were based on the movie alone since I have not read the book. I can only do that. I am pleased you like the book and I may read it some day.
reply
share
greenegg
13 years ago
Thanks, silverwhistle, for telling us more about the book. I will check it out for myself. There was plenty of potential in South Riding, but the producers/writers squandered it with their choppy, high-speed storytelling. That final episode simply felt absurd, with so many major events all cobbled together.
I'm completely fed up with the BBC. Why must they dumb everything down? No wonder we're becoming a planet full of witless sheeple! As a former English professor who grew up during the glory days of British TV and Masterpiece Theatre/Mystery, I'm appalled by the current crop of bodice-ripper crap that purports to be historical (The Tudors) or the gutted versions of literature/classic TV that pass for adaptations these days (Forsyte Saga remake, South Riding, Upstairs, Downstairs revival). It's use it or lose it with our brains, and all this removing characters and condensing stories to sub-Reader's Digest level only hastens the atrophy. I used to have the same argument with some of my colleagues; they kept lowering their curricula to meet the supposedly lower levels of preparedness or intelligence perceived in the youth of the past 20 years. I kept my expectations high, and most students rose to the challenge.
FYI, if the book takes place between 1932-35, then WWI had been over just 14 years at the book's beginning.
Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!
reply
share
Flossieandflo
13 years ago
Amen to that Greenegg, very well said.
I've just begun watching the 74 adaptation which is 13 episodes rather than 3, if you haven't seen it I recommend it from what I've seen so far.
reply
share
silverwhistle
13 years ago
Well, the "Forsyte Saga remake" was ITV, not BBC, but your point still remains. They seem more concerned with a glossy 'cinematic' look than about scripts these days. And they underestimate attention spans. Dross such as The Tudors runs on for weeks and weeks, as do dull medical/cop dramas and soaps, so they clearly can afford it for some things!
I recommend the 13-episode South Riding made by Yorkshire Television in 1974: it's far more faithful to the book.
Seingner Conrat, tot per vostr'amor chan
http://www.silverwhistle.co.uk/knightlife
reply
share