"VANITY FAIR" (1987) Review
I found myself wondering how many adaptations of William Makepeace Thackeray's 1847-1848 novel there have been. As it turned out, this is one piece of literature that has been adapted countless number of times - in film, radio and television. I have seen at least five adaptations myself. And one of them turned out to be the sixteen-part television miniseries that aired on the BBC in 1987.
Since Thackeray's novel is a very familiar tale, I will give a brief recount. Adapted by Alexander Baron and directed by Michael Owen Morris, "VANITY FAIR" told the story of one Rebecca "Becky" Sharp, an impoverished daughter of an English art teacher and French dancer in late Georgian Britain. Determined to climb her way out of poverty and into society, Becky manages to befriend Amelia Sedley, the daughter of a wealthy London merchant. When both finally graduate from Miss Pinkerton's School for Girls, Becky is invited to spend some time with Amelia's family, before she has to assume duties as a governess to the daughters of a minor baronet and landowner named Sir Pitt Crawley. During her time with the Sedleys, she almost manages to snare Amelia's older brother, Jos, a "nabob" from India, as a husband. But the interference of George Osborne, the son of another merchant who happens to Amelia's heart desire, leaves Becky single and employment as a governess. However, upon her arrival at Queen's Crawley, the Crawleys' estate, Becky's charm and wiles inflict a shake-up with the family that would influence lives for years to come.
While viewing "VANITY FAIR", it occurred to me that it is really a product of its time. Although not completely faithful to Thackeray's novel, it struck me as being more so than any adaptation I have seen. Most literary adaptations on television tend to be rather faithful - at least between the 1970s and the 1990s. Especially during the decade of the 1980s. Another sign of this miniseries being a product of its age is the quality of its photography. It is rather faded - typical of many such productions during the 1970s and 1980s. But for me, complete faithfulness to a literary source is not a true sign of the quality of a television adaptation. Nor the quality of the film it was shot on. So, how do I feel about "VANITY FAIR"?
Remember the miniseries' faded look I had commented upon? I really wish it had been shot on better film stock. Stuart Murdoch and Mickey Edwards' visual effects struck me as too eye-catching to be wasted on film stock that quickly faded with time. Another problem I had proved to be the episode that centered around the Battle of Waterloo. I realize that it would make sense for the most of episode's narrative to be told from Becky Sharp Crawley's point of view. Yet, considering that it was able to feature the discovery of one dead character on the battlefield, I wish the episode had been willing to embellish the sequence a bit more. The sequence featured a great deal on Becky and Amelia saying good-bye to their respective spouses, along with Becky bargaining with Jos Sedley over her husband's horses. Overall, the entire sequence . . . nearly the entire episode seemed to lack a sense of urgency over the entire Waterloo campaign and how it affected the main characters. I have one last complaint about "VANITY FAIR" . . . namely the Maquis of Steyne. To be honest, my complaint against him is rather minor. I have a complaint against his physical appearance. Thanks to Lesley Weaver's makeup, I could barely make out actor John Shrapnel's features. He seemed to be a whole mass of hair and whiskers plastered on a slightly reddish countenance.
On the other hand, I really enjoyed how the production went into full detail of Thackeray's novel. Was it completely faithful? I rather doubt it. I noticed how Alexander Baron's screenplay did not adhere to Thackeray's rather nasty portrayal of non-white characters such as Miss Schwartz. Thankfully. On the other hand, Baron, along with director Michael Owen Morris did an excellent job in their portrayals of the novel's main characters - especially Rebecca Sharp, Rawdon Crawley, Amelia Sedley, Jos Sedley, George Osborne, Mr. Osborne and William Dobbin. I will be honest. My favorite segments of the production . . . are basically my favorite segments of the novel. I enjoyed the production's re-creation of Becky's story that began with her departure from Miss Pinkerton's School for Girls to hers and Amelia's adventures during the Waterloo campaign.
Despite the miniseries' limited photography, I must admit there are other aspects of "VANITY FAIR" that impressed me. I enjoyed Gavin Davies and Sally Engelbach's production designs. Both did an admirable of re-creating the production's setting of early 19th century Britain, Belgium, France and Germany. They were ably assisted by set decorations created by the art department, led by David Ackrill and Tony Fisher. But I really must commend Joyce Hawkins' costume designs. I found them colorful and tailor-made. I also thought Ms. Hawkins did an excellent job in her re-creation of the early 19th century fashions.
There is one segment in Thackeray's story I found difficult to enjoy - namely Becky's rise in British society, her relationship with the Maquis of Steyne, the exposure of her as a cold parent and ending with the destruction of her marriage to Rawdon. It is not the fault of Baron, Morris or Thackeray. It is simply my least favorite part of the story. During this segment, Becky transformed from a morally questionable anti-heroine to an outright villainess. Perhaps this is why I found it difficult to revel in Becky's eventual fall. One, I found this portrayal of Becky a bit too one-dimensional for my tastes. Two, there seemed to be this underlying theme in Becky's downfall that she deserved it for being too ambitious, not knowing her place and not being the ideal woman. I realize that I should sweep these feelings away in the wake of her last crime. But for some reason, I cannot. A part of me wonders, to this day, if Thackeray had went too far in this transformation of Becky's character.
I did not have a problem with the performances featured in "VANITY FAIR". If I must be honest, I found them to be very competent. Morris handled his cast very well. The miniseries featured solid performances from Fiona Walker, Shaughan Seymour, Gillian Raine, Tony Doyle, Malcolm Terris, Vicky Licorish, Eileen Colgan, Irene MacDougall, Alan Surtees, and David Horovitch. I also enjoyed the performances from the likes of Freddie Jones, who made a very lively Sir Pitt Crawley; John Shrapnel, who gave an intimidating portrayal of the Maquis of Steyne, underneath the makeup and wig; Siân Phillips, who struck me as a very entertaining Matilda Crawley; David Swift, whose portrayal of Mr. Sedley seemed to reek with pathos; and Philippa Urquhart, who was excellent as the malleable Mrs. Briggs.
But there were those performances that truly impressed me. Robert Lang gave an excellent performance as the ruthless and ambitious Mr. Osborne, who seemed to be handicapped by his own stubborness. Benedict Taylor did a superb job in portraying the varied nature of George Osborne - his charm, his shallowness and selfish streak. James Saxon was equally impressive as the insecure, yet vain Joseph "Jos" Sedley. Simon Dormandy gave a very complex and skillful performance as the priggish William Dobbin, a character I have always harbored mixed feelings about. I personally think that Jack Klaff made the best on-screen Rawdon Crawley I have seen on-screen, so far. Although his character has always been described as an affable, yet empty-headed man who eventually realized he had married a woman beyond his depth. Klaff did an excellent job of conveying those traits more than actor I have seen in the role.
Rebecca Saire seemed perfectly cast as the demure, yet shallow Amelia Sedley, who spent years infatuated with a man she never really knew or understood. It is not often I find an actress who does an excellent of portraying a girl in a woman's body, who at the end, is forced to grow up due to an unpleasant realization. If Saire seemed perfectly cast as the childish Amelia, Eve Matheson struck me as even more perfect as the charming and manipulative Rebecca Sharp. Unlike other actresses who have portrayed Becky, I would never describe Matheson as a beauty, despite being physically attractive. What I found impressive about Matheson's performance is the manner in which she conveyed Becky's ability to charm and seduce others, utilizing her eyes, mannerisms, the ability to cry on cue and her voice. Matheson managed to portray Becky as the most desirable woman around.
I have never seen another on screen Becky Sharp who managed to ooze charm and seduction the way Matheson did. And yet, she also managed to convey Becky's unpleasant side without being theatrical about it. Someone had once described Matheson's Beck as "spunky". Oh please. Spunky? The 1987 Rebecca Sharp was a lot more than that, thanks to Matheson's performance. Dammit, the woman should have received some kind of award for her performance. She was that good.
I have a few quibbles about "VANITY FAIR". Basically, I wish the miniseries had been shot on better film stock. And I wish that the Waterloo sequence had been a bit more . . . embellished. Otherwise, I feel that this 1987 adaptation of William Makepeace Thackeray's novel is the best I have seen so far. I am flabbergasted at how close I came to ignoring this production altogether.
"THIRTEEN AT DINNER" (1985) ReviewIn the late 1970s and early 1980s, Peter Ustinov starred in theatrical adaptations of two Agatha Christie novels that featured her Belgian protagonist, detective Hercule Poirot. Three years after the second film, CBS Television hired him to star in three television movies featuring the Poirot character. The first one was the second adaptation of Christie's 1933 novel, "Lord Edgeware Dies". Actually, the 1933 novel was published in the United States under a different title. And the 1985 television adaptation aired on CBS under that second title as "THIRTEEN AT DINNER". After appearing as a guest on a television talk show, Belgian-born detective Hercule Poirot is recruited by a famous American actress named Jane Wilkinson to convince her estranged husband, Lord Edgeware, to give her a divorce, for she has plans to marry the Duke of Merton. To Poirot's surprise, Lord Edgeware informs the former that he had already agreed to end his marriage to the American-born actress in a letter. However, Jane denies ever receiving it. The following evening, Lord Edgeware is murdered at his home. Scotland Yard's Chief Inspector Japp immediately suspects Jane of the murder. However, both Poirot and Japp discovers that the actress had attended a dinner party held by Sir Montague Corner on the night of the murder. This leaves Poirot, his friend Arthur Hastings and Japp to discover who had a reason to kill Lord Edgeware . . . or frame Jane Wilkinson for murder."THIRTEEN AT DINNER" was the first adaptation of Christie's 1933 novel that I had ever seen. However, I had also seen the 2000 adaptation from ITV's "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" and wrote a review of it. If I must be honest, I found the 2000 television movie mildly enjoyable, but unremarkable. And if I must be honest, I could say the same about this adaptation. Considering that this adaptation was set during the time it was made - namely the mid-1980s. There were a few updates in the story to adhere to its late 20th century setting - which included making both Jane Wilkinson and a fellow actor, Bryan Martin, movie actors. Otherwise, Rod Browning's teleplay more or less followed Christie's novel.What I disliked about "THIRTEEN AT DINNER"? I had one major problem. Thanks to Rod Browning's screenplay, I found it rather easy to guess who was killer after the third victim, another actor named Donald Ross, was murdered. One would have to be an idiot not to figure it out. What I liked about "THIRTEEN AT DINNER"? Well . . . despite the new time setting, the movie managed to be more or less faithful to Christie's novel. I found some of the humor rather sharp, especially between Poirot and Hastings. I rather liked John Addison's theme for Poirot. I found it rather quirky and easy to remember. More importantly, I thought the characterizations featured in the film rather strong. And the film's photography remained rather sharp after thirty-two years, thanks to Curtis Clark.What I liked best about "THIRTEEN AT DINNER" were the performances. I really enjoyed Peter Ustinov's portrayal of Hercule Poirot in this film. His Poirot seemed more witty and sharp-tongued than he was in movies like "DEATH ON THE NILE" and "EVIL UNDER THE SUN". Although Jonathan Cecil looked like the typical English twit, his version of Arthur Hastings seemed a bit more clear-headed. And there were a few moments in which Cecil's Hastings briefly engaged in little witty repartees with Ustinov's Poirot. I rather enjoyed it. Faye Dunaway seemed to be enjoying herself in the dual roles of prime suspect Jane Wilkinson, Lady Edgeware and impersonator Carlotta Adams. I found her performance very charming and energetic. Either that or she was simply giving her usual 100% into the roles.Although Lee Horsley has appeared in more prestigious movie and television productions, I have to admit that I found his role as action star Bryan Martin in this teleplay to be one of his most interesting and best performances. Superficially, Horsley portrayed the actor as an easy-going and charming star. But with subtle skill, Horsley conveyed Bryan Martin as an over-weening and vindictive egotist. Another interesting performance came from a much younger Bill Nighy, who portrayed Lord Edgeware's weak-willed heir, Ronald Marsh. I enjoyed Nighy's performance very much and found myself wishing that his role had been slightly bigger. David Suchet, who would begin a twenty-three year stint as Hercule Poirot in ITV's "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT", portrayed none other than Chief Inspector Japp in this film. He gave a funny and sharp performance as Japp; and I found his interactions with Ustinov very entertaining. Suchet considered this performance as one of his worst. I do not agree. I suspect Ustinov felt the same, for he had suggested that Suchet should consider portraying Poirot in the future. "THIRTEEN AT DINNER"also featured solid performances from Amanda Pays, Diane Keen, Glyn Baker, John Barron, Geoffrey Rose, Pamela Salem; Benedict Taylor, whose portrayal of actor (he was a writer in Christie's novel) Donald Ross struck me as rather intelligent; and Allan Cuthbertson, who gave a very entertaining performance as the "friendly", yet competitive and egotistical Sir Montague Corner. I might a well be frank. I did not find the narrative for "THIRTEEN AT DINNER" particularly exceptional, but it was pretty solid. In fact, I could say the same about the 1933 novel and the 2000 television adaptation. What did strike me as exceptional was the cast. The movie did feature a very entertaining cast led by the always superb Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot and Faye Dunaway.
"THE FAR PAVILIONS" (1984) Review
Thirty-four years ago saw the publication of an international best seller about a young British Army officer during the British Raj in 19th century India. The novel's success not brought about a not-so-successful musical stage play in 2005, but also a six-part television miniseries, twenty-one years earlier.
Directed by Peter Duffell for HBO, "THE FAR PAVILIONS" tells the story of Ashton "Ash" Pelham-Martyn, the only son of prominent British botanist Hillary Pelham-Martyn and his wife in the foothills of the Himalayan Mountains in 1853. After his mother dies of childbirth, Ashton is mainly raised by his ayah (nurse) Sita, who is a part of his father's retinue. Cholera takes the lives of all members of the Pelham-Martyn camp some four years later, with the exception of Ash and Sita. The latter tries to deliver Ash to his mother's family in Mardan, but the uprising of the Sepoy Rebellion leads her to adopt the slightly dark-skinned Ash as her son. Both eventually take refuge in the kingdom of Gulkote. While Ash forgets about his British ancestry, he becomes the servant for Crown Prince Lalji and befriends the neglected Princess Anjuli, Master of Stables Koda Dad, and his son Zarin. Ashton eventually leaves Gulkote after learning from the dying Sita about his true ancestry. After reaching his relatives in Mardan, Ash is sent back to Great Britain to live with his Pelham-Martyn relations. Within less than a decade, he returns to India as a newly commissioned British Army. Not only does he make new acquaintances, but also renews old ones - including the Princess Anjuli.
British costume dramas have always been popular with American television and movie audiences for decades. But aside from the Jane Austen phenomenon between 1995 and 2008, there seemed to be an even bigger demand for period pieces from the U.K. during the 1980s . . . a major consequence from the popular royal wedding of the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer. HBO and Peter Duffell took M.M. Kaye's 1978 bestseller and transformed it into a miniseries filled with six one-hour episodes. Aside from a few changes, "THE FAR PAVILIONS" was more or less a television hit. And in many ways, it was easy to see why.
First of all, Kaye's story about a forbidden love story between a British Army officer viewed as an outsider by most of his fellow Britons and an Indian princess with a touch of European blood (Russian) was bound to appeal to the most romantic. Add an epic trek across the Indian subcontinent (in the form of a royal wedding party), action on the North West frontier and a historical event - namely the start of the Second Anglo-Afghan War - and one is faced with a costumed epic of the most romantic kind. And I am flabbergasted at how the story managed to criticize the British presence in both India and Afghanistan, and at the same time, glorify the military aspect of the British Empire. If I must be honest, M.M. Kaye not only wrote a pretty damn good story, but she and screenwriter Julian Bond did a solid job in adapting the novel for television.
Now, I said solid, not excellent. Even the most first-rate miniseries is not perfect, but I feel that "THE FAR PAVILIONS" possessed flaws that prevented it from being the superb production it could have been. The miniseries' main problem seemed to be its look. I had no problems with Robert W. Laing's production designs. His work, along with George Richardson's art direction, Jack Cardiff's superb cinematography, and Hugh Scaife's set decorations superbly brought mid-to-late 19th century British India to life. I was especially impressed by the crew's re-creation of the Rana of Bhithor's palace, the cantonments for the Corps of Guides regiment and the royal wedding procession for the Rana of Bhitor's brides - Princess Shushila and Princess Anjuli of Karidkote (formerly Gulkote). For a miniseries that cost $12 million dollars to produce, why shoot it on such poor quality film, whose color seemed to have faded over the past two or three decades? It seemed criminal that such a lush production was shot on film of bad quality.
As much as I admired Bond and Kaye's adaptation of the latter's novel, there were two aspects of their script that annoyed me. One, the screenplay skipped one of the novel's best parts - namely Ash's childhood in Gulkote. Instead, the story of his birth, early travels with Sita and his time in Gulkote were revealed in a montage that served as backdrop for the opening credits. And I was not that impressed at how the script handled Ash's early romance with a young English debutante named Belinda Harlowe. I found it rushed and unsatisfying. More importantly, the entire sequence seemed like a waste of Felicity Dean and Rupert Everett's (who played Ash's doomed rival George Garforth) time. And some of the dialogue for the romantic scenes between Ash and Juli struck me as so wince inducing that it took me a while to unclench my teeth after the scenes ended.
I had other problems with "THE FAR PAVILIONS". The casting of American actress Amy Irving as the adult Princess Anjli ("Juli") produced a "what the hell?" response from me when I first saw the miniseries. That startled feeling remained after my last viewing. Irving simply seemed miscast in the role, despite a decent performance from her and her solid chemistry with lead actor Ben Cross. Another role that failed to match with the performer was that of British military administrator, Sir Louis Cavagnari, portrayed by John Gielgud. Cavagnari was 39 years old, when he met his death at the British mission in Kabul, Afghanistan. Gielgud was 79 to 80 years old when he portrayed the military officer . . . naturally too old for the role. The makeup department tried to take years off the actor with hair dye and make-up. Let us just say that Amy Irving was more convincing as an Indian princess than Gielgud was as a character 40 years his junior. However, I will give Gielgud plenty of credit for his excellent portrayal of a British Imperial diplomat at his most arrogant.
Aside from my quibbles about the casting of Amy Irving and John Gielgud, I have no complaints about the rest of the cast. Ben Cross did a superb job in his portrayal of the hot tempered and impatient Ashton Pelham-Martyn. Ash has always been a frustrating character for me. Although I sympathized with his feelings and beliefs, his occasional bursts of impatience and naiveté irritated me. And Cross perfectly captured all of these aspects of Ash's nature. Despite my strong belief that she was miscast, I cannot deny that Amy Irving gave a subtle and well acted performance as Princess Anjuli. But I could never accuse Omar Sharif of being miscast. He did a superb job in his portrayal of the wise and very witty horsemaster of Gulkote/Karidkote, Koda Dad. Sharif made it easy to see why Ash came to regard Koda Dad as more of a father figure than any other older male. Although I believe that Irving was miscast as Princess Anjuli, I was surprised at how impressed I was by Christopher Lee's portrayal of Anjuli's uncle, Prince Kaka-ji Rao. The Anglo-Spanish actor did an excellent job of portraying a character from a completely different race. I suspect the secret to Lee's performance was that he did not try so hard to sell the idea of him being an Indian prince. And Saeed Jaffrey was superb as the effeminate, yet manipulate and murderous courtier, Biju Ram. It seemed a pity that the miniseries did not explore Ash's childhood. Audiences would have been able to enjoy more of Jaffrey's performance.
Sneh Gupta was excellent as childishly imperious and self-absorbed Princess Shushila, Juli's younger sister. She did a first-rate job of transforming Shushila from a sympathetic character to a childishly imperious villainess. Robert Hardy gave a solid performance as the Commandant of the Guides. Benedict Taylor was charming and outgoing as Ash's only military friend, Walter "Wally" Hamilton. I really do not know how to describe Rosanno Brazzi's performance as the Rana of Bhithor. I feel that too much makeup made it difficult for me to get a grip on his character. I was surprised to see Art Malik as Koda Dad's son, Zarin. But his role did not seem big enough to produce a comment from me. Rupert Everett was excellent as George Garforth, the British civil servant with a secret to hide. Unfortunately, I was less than impressed with the miniseries' portrayal of the story line in which he played a part.
I realize that "THE FAR PAVILIONS" has a good number of strikes against it. But its virtues outweighed its flaws. And in the end, it proved to be an entertaining miniseries, thanks to the lush production and the first-rate cast led by Ben Cross.
![tfp_19[14]](http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/ctrent29/30791230/557558/557558_300.jpg "tfp_19[14]")
