"OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" (1998) Second Review

 

"OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" (1998) Second Review

Twelve years ago, I had written a review of "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND", the BBC's 1998 adaptation of Charles Dickens' 1865 novel. Needless to say, my opinion of it proved to be mixed. But after numerous re-watches of the four-part miniseries, I came to the conclusion that my views had undergone a tremendous change . . . as the following new review will convey.

During my recent re-watch of "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND", I continued to find it a complicated tale. It featured at least four subplots (and not three, as I had originally assumed). And they all stemmed from the alleged death of John Harmon, the estranged heir to a fortune created by his father, a former collector from London's rubbish. "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" began with a solicitor named Mortimer Lightwood informing the circumstances on the death of his late client and the details of Mr. Harmon Sr.'s will to his aunt and a group of listeners at a London society party. According to Lightwood, Mr. Harmon made his fortune from London's rubbish. The terms of his will stipulated that his fortune should go to John, returning to Britain after years spent abroad. The will allowed John to inherit his father's money on the condition that he marry a woman he has never met, Miss Bella Wilfer. However, Lightwood received news that John Harmon's body had been found in the Thames River. He and his close friend, Eugene Wrayburn, head toward the river to identify the body. And it was this sequence that led to the following subplots:

*Mr. Harmon's employees, Nicodemus and Henrietta Boffin inherit the Harmon fortune and take Bella Wilfer on as a ward/companion to compensate for her loss, following John Harmon's "death".

*John Harmon fakes his death and assumes the identity of John Rokesmith, the Boffins' social secretary, in order to ascertain Bella Wilfer's character.

*Gaffer Hexam, the waterman and scavenger who found Harmon's "body", ends being accused of murdering "Harmon" by Hexam's duplicitous former partner, Roger "Rogue" Riderhood.

*While accompanying his friend, Mortimer Lightwood, to identify Harmon's body, Eugene Wrayburn meets and falls in love with Hexam's daughter, Lizzie.

*Bradley Headstone, the schoolmaster of Charley Hexam, Lizzie's younger brother, develops a romantic, yet violent obsession with Lizzie and a deep hatred of Eugene.

*Mr. Boffin hires a ballad-seller with a wooden leg named Silas Wegg to read for him. When he finds Harmon's will in one of the Harmon dust piles, Wegg schemes with a taxidermist named Mr. Venus to blackmail the newly rich dustman.

*Mr. and Mrs. Lammle, a society couple who had married each other for money and discovered that neither had any, plot to swindle Mr. Boffin of his money.

I have experienced a handful of movies, novels and television shows in which disparate subplots eventually form into one main narrative. A major example of this was the 2002 novel and its 2008 movie adaptation, "MIRACLE AT ST. ANNA". But I cannot recall any form of fiction in which a particular narrative divides into a series of subplots from one main action or character. When I first saw "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND", I found this narrative device not only original, but rather disconcerting.

The problem I initially had with "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" was that I only enjoyed only one major subplot - the bizarre "love triangle" between Eugene Wrayburn, Lizzie Hexam and Bradley Headstone. I cannot deny that I found it very interesting and very tense. Yet another re-watch of the miniseries made me aware of the mistakes I had made in judgment. One, my views of the miniseries' other subplots turned out to be more interesting than I had initially assumed. It finally occurred to me how wealth, greed and/or class played major roles in Dickens' story. The Harmon fortune had attracted greedy types like Silas Wegg and the Lammles. Even Bella Wilfer was willing to use the Boffins to find a wealthy husband within London's high society. Gaffar Hexam's discovery of the fake John Harmon's body and the reward he had received led his greedy and jealous former partner to accuse him of murder.

John's deception also exposed a good deal of class bigotry in this tale. Upper-class types like Lady Tippins seemed appalled at the idea of lower-class citizens like the Boffins inheriting a large fortune. She seemed to harbor this attitude that attorney Mortimer Lightwood should automatically take control of the Harmon fortune. As the Boffins' protégé, Bella initially regarded John as beneath her, due to his position as the Boffins' social secretary, John Rokesmith. Class bigotry practically reeked throughout the love triangle between Lizzie, Eugene and Bradley. Despite being in love with Lizzie, the upper-class Eugene seemed more wiling to view her as a potential mistress, instead of a wife. Bradley Headstone, who came from the same class as Lizzie, seemed more than willing to marry her. Yet, he also regarded her as being socially beneath him, due to her lack of education. He seemed to believe Lizzie should be grateful to marry him and reacted with surprise when she rejected his offer. And Eugene not only regarded Bradley as a romantic rival, but also as a man who was socially beneath him. The miniseries ended with Mortimer Lightwood attending a society party aboard a River Thames steamer. He and a shy man named Mr. Tremlow defended a particular marriage that crossed class lines, despite the other partygoers' disapproval and contempt. This ending is one of the main reasons I truly enjoy this adaptation of Dickens' novel. I found it emotionally satisfying, yet very poignant.

Sandy Welch made some changes in Dickens' narrative. Instead of pursuing heiress Georgiana Podsnap and attempting to trap her into marriage with fortune hunter Fascinating Fledgby, Alfred and Sophia Lammles set their sights on the Boffins' money. Welch's screenplay had excluded Fledgby altogether, along with his moneylending business. These changes made sense to me, considering the Lammles' arc with Fledgby and Miss Podsnap had nothing to do with John Harmon or his fortune. The Lammles met a nameless heiress (a stand-in for Georgiana Podsnap?) at a rail station near the end, as they boarded a train for Dover and the English Channel. Due to Welch's erasure of the Fledgby character, she reduced Mr. Riah's character as a close friend of both Lizzie and her friend, dollmaker Jenny Wren. Mr. Riah only played a role by helping Lizzie find a job outside of London.

It seemed a pity that Welch had eliminated the Fledgby character and his arc with Mr. Riah. It would have given the miniseries a peek into Victorian anti-Semitism, something the novel managed to achieve on a small scale. But as I had pointed out - Fledgby and Mr. Riah's arc had no connection to John Harmon, his fortune and his deception. To understand what I am trying to say, let me clarify. All of the other arcs in "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" either began with Mr. Harmon Sr.'s will or with John Harmon's actions following his arrival in London. The former's will led John to create and participate in his deception in order to judge Bella. If Mr. Harmon had not made that condition for John to marry Bella in order to inherit his fortune, chances are John would have never conceived his deception. He would have never been attacked by the man he had recruited to impersonate him. Hexam would have never found the impersonator's body and found himself falsely accused of murder by his former partner.

Even if Mr. Harmon's will had not changed, John could have simply adhered to and inherit his father's fortune, leading to a possible loveless marriage to Bella. With no body to find, Mortimer and especially Eugene would have never met Lizzie. As Charly Hexam's tutor, Bradley Headstone probably would have met Lizzie and fallen in love with her anyway. But I believe she still would have rejected him. It is possible the Lammles would have focused their attention on John. But I suspect they would have very little success in befriending him. If John had immediately inherited his father's fortune, the Boffins would have inherited one of the Harmons' dust piles. Does this mean Mr. Boffin would have hired Wegg as his reader anyway? I wonder.

I cannot deny that "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" did such an excellent job in exploring the effects of wealth, greed and class in Victorian London. All or most of the subplots seemed to flow from John Harmon and his decision to fake his death. Like the River Thames that flows through southern England and London. Is it any wonder that Dickens had decided to set his novel along the river - even outside of London? The story began with Lizzie and and her father scavenging along the Thames and ended on that lovely moment when both Mortimer and a shy man named Mr. Tremlow defended a recent marriage that crossed class lines at a society party aboard a steamer on the river.

As for the production values for "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND", I still remain impressed as ever. David Odd's cinematography still strikes me as colorful and epic. I am not surprised that he had received a BAFTA Award nomination for his work. Malcolm Thornton won a BAFTA Award for the miniseries' excellent production designs. His recreation of mid-19th century London and the River Thames struck me as colorful, well-detailed and just outstanding. Mike O'Neil had earned a BAFTA nomination for his costume designs. A part of me wish he had won. I still find them beautiful and a near reflection of Britain in the 1860s, as shown in the images below:

 

My opinion of "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" may have improved over the years, but I still have a few issues with it. One of those issues remained John Harmon's deception regarding his identity - namely how it affected Bella Wilfer. I still find it problematic that John did not reveal his true identity to her, until a few months after their wedding. And I found Bella's lack of hostility toward his revelation implausible. Although I found Silas Wegg's attempt to blackmail Mr. Boffin interesting, I found his constant complaints about his target and plotting with Mr. Venus rather irritating after two episodes or so.

The performances featured in the 1998 miniseries more than satisfied me. I found Harmon's gradual love for Bella very interesting to watch, thanks to Steven Mackintosh's subtle performance. And Anna Friel did a great job in developing Bella Wilfur from a materialistic and ambitious young woman, to one for whom love and morality meant more to her than material wealth. "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" also featured excellent performances from Peter Vaughn and Pam Ferris as the Boffins, Kenneth Cranham as Silas Wegg, Margaret Tyzack as the imperious Tippins, and Dominic Mafham as Mortimer Lightwood. The miniseries also featured first-rate supporting performances from the likes of David Schofield as the no-nonsense Gaffer Hexam, Anthony Calf and Doon Mackichan as the Lammles, Paul Bailey as Charley Hexam, Peter Wight as Mr. Wilfer, Cyril Sharps as the kindly Mr. Riah, Linda Bassett as pub owner Abby Potterson, Edna Doré as the kindly, yet proud Betty Higden; and Robert Lang as the reserved and shy Mr. Tremlow, whom I believe provided one of the best moments in the series.

But there seemed to be performances that I believe stood above the others. Timothy Spall gave one of his more subtle performances as the enigmatic taxidermist Mr. Venus, who found himself drawn reluctantly in Wegg's scheming. Some have complained that Katy Murphy had been too old, as a thirty-something actress, to portray dollmaker Jenny Wren, a character in her late teen or early 20s. But the other two actresses I have seen portray Jenny were either 30 or older, so I do not understand the complaint. And Murphy did such an excellent job in conveying Jenny's emotional, yet blunt personality. I thought David Bradley did a superb job in his portrayal of the sly, yet malevolent waterman, Rogue Riderhood. Unlike other actors in the role, he did not succumb to occasional histrionics.

In my previous review of "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND", I had accused David Morrissey of engaging in histrionics in his portrayal of the violently jealous headmaster, Bradley Headstone. I had been wrong. Morrissey only did it once in a scene that featured Lizzie Hexam's rejection of his marriage proposal. Otherwise, I thought the actor gave a brilliant performance. One would think portraying the reserved Lizzie Hexam would be a walk in the park for any actress. Yet, I believe Keeley Hawes took the portrayal to another level by not only conveying Lizzie's dislike of Headstone, and her wariness toward Eugene Wrayburn's feelings for her; but also her streak of insecurity that led her to doubt her worthiness for someone like Eugene. I had earlier accuse the actress of being unable of to express Lizzie's true feelings for Eugene until the last episode. But I forgot that Hawes did convey moments of attraction toward Eugene. And in portraying a reserved character like Lizzie, she did an effective job of conveying the character's penchant for keeping such feelings closely to her chest. I have said this before and I will say it again - I believe Paul McGann gave the best performance in "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND", for his portrayal of the ambiguous Eugene Wrayburn. If one closely observe the character, he is not exactly a nice man. At least most of the time. McGann did a beautiful job in his portrayal of the indolent, yet patronizing attorney; conveying both the negative and surprisingly, the character's positive traits. And thanks to McGann's performance, one could see Eugene's struggle between his love for Lizzie and his wariness over her class.

Do I still believe "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" was flawed? Well . . . I point out a few. As I had stated in my previous review, the 1864-65 novel is not considered among Charles Dickens' best works. But my opinion of the 1998 adaptation certainly has improved a great deal over the years. Screenwriter Sandy Welch and director Julian Farino did excellent jobs in translating Dickens' tale to the television screen. And the production not only featured first-rate work from the crew, but also superb performances from an excellent cast led by Steven Mackintosh. If I must be honest, not only has my opinion of "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" improved over the years, I now consider it one of the best adaptations of any of Dickens' works.

"OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" (1998) Review

"OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" (1998) Review

As a rule, I have never been an ardent fan of Charles Dickens' novels. I suppose my aversion to his writing stemmed from being forced to read his 1838 tale, "Oliver Twist", while in my early teens. That was the last time I had read a Dickens novel, but several film and television adaptations of his work awaited me for many years down the road. And I did not warm up to them.

After years of avoiding Dickens' novels or adaptations of his work, I finally decided to put my aversion of his writing aside and set my mind on watching "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND", Sandy Welch's 1998 adaptation of his last completed novel, published in 1864-65. Needless to say, "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" proved to be a complicated tale. It featured at least three subplots - major and minor - and they all stemmed from the alleged death of the heir to a fortune created by his father, a former collector from London's rubbish.

"OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" began with a solicitor named Mortimer Lightwood, who narrates the circumstances on the death of his late client and the details of the latter's will to his aunt and a group of listeners at a London society party. According to Lightwood, Mr. Harmon made his fortune from London's rubbish. The terms of his will stipulated that his fortune should go to his estranged son John, who is returning to Britain after years spent abroad. John can inherit his father's money on the condition that he marry a woman he has never met, Miss Bella Wilfer. However, Lightwood receives news that John Harmon's body has been found in the Thames River. He and his close friend Eugene Wrayburn head toward the river to identify the body. And it was this sequence that led to the following subplots:

*Mr. Harmon's employees, Nicodemus and Henrietta Boffin inherit the Harmon fortune and take Bella Wilfer as a ward to compensate for her loss, following John Harmon's "death".

*John Harmon fakes his death and assumes the identity of John Rokesmith, the Boffins' social secretary, in order to ascertain Bella Wilfer's character.

*The man who found Harmon's "body" is a waterman and scavenger named Gaffer Hexam. He is later accused of murdering "Harmon".

*While accompanying his friend, Mortimer Lightwood, to identify Harmon's body, Eugene Wrayburn meets and falls in love with Hexam's daughter, Lizzie.

*Charley Hexam, Lizzie's younger brother, has a headmaster named Bradley Headstone, who becomes romantically and violently obsessed with Lizzie.

*A ballad-seller with a wooden leg named Silas Wegg is hired by the Boffins to read for them. When he finds Harmon's will in the dust, he schemes with a taxidermist named Mr. Venus to blackmail the newly rich couple.

*Mr. and Mrs. Lammle are a society couple who married each other for money and discovered that neither had any. They eventually set their sights on the Boffins to swindle.

I have seen many movies and read many novels in which disparate subplots eventually form into one main narrative. A major example of this is the 2002 novel and its 2008 adaptation, "MIRACLE AT ST. ANNA". But I cannot recall any form of fiction in which a particular narrative divides into a series of subplots in which one barely have anything in common with another. And I must say that I found this narrative device not only original, but rather disconcerting.

The problem I mainly have with "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" is that I only enjoyed one major subplot - which dealt with Eugene Wrayburn, Lizzie Hexam and Bradley Headstone. I cannot deny that I found it very interesting and very tense, despite David Morrissey's occasional moments of histronics, when expressing Headstone's feelings for both Wrayburn and Lizzie; and actress Keeley Hawes' inability to express Lizzie's true feelings for Wrayburn until the last episode. And I suspect that director Julian Farino may have been at fault, instead of Hawes. Paul McGann's portrayal of the ambiguous Wrayburn struck me as the best performance not only in this particular subplot, but also in the entire miniseries.

Inheriting John Harmon's fortune attracted a good deal of greedy fortune hunters to the Boffins. Unfortunately, Silas Wegg's attempts to blackmail them ended on a whimper. It did not help that he spent at least two to three episodes (out of four) complaining about his lot in life and plotting with Mr. Venus. I was even less impressed with the poor and newly married Mr. and Mrs. Lammle's attempts to swindle money from the Boffins. In fact, I am still in the dark over how their attempt failed.

The subplot featuring John Harmon/Rokesmith and Bella Wilfer could have amounted to something. I found Harmon's gradual love for Bella very interesting to watch, thanks to Steven Mackintosh's subtle performance. And Anna Friel did a great job in developing Bella Wilfur from a materialistic and ambitious young woman, to one for whom love and morality meant more to her than material wealth. But the problem I have with this subplot? Bella did not learn the truth about John until some time after their wedding. Even worse, he had to resort to deception to find out whether Bella was worthy of his hand. I realize that when they first met, she was not exactly a pleasant woman. But he conducted their courtship, while deceiving her. Even worse, Bella forgave John a bit too easily, once she learned the truth.

Aside from the excellent performances; including those from Peter Vaughn and Pam Ferris as the Boffins, Kenneth Cranham as Silas Wegg, Margaret Tyzack as the imperious Tippins, and Dominic Mafham as Mortimer Lightwood; "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" has two other virtues that I found impressive. The four-part miniseries' visual style struck me as colorful and at the same time, epic. And I believe one has to thank David Odd for his excellent. And Mike O'Neil's Victorian costumes truly blew me away. Not only did I find them beautiful, but a near accurate reflection of Britain in the 1860s.

One might believe that I dislike "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND". Trust me, I liked it. But I did not love it. I suspect that Sandy Welch and director Julian Farino did the best they could in translating Dickens' tale to the screen. Perhaps they more than did their best and that was the trouble. The 1864-65 novel is not considered among the novelist' best. "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" has yet to improve my opinion of Charles Dickens as a novelist. Perhaps a second viewing might do the job.

"OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" (1998) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND", the 1998 television adaptation of Charles Dickens' 1865 novel. Adapted by Sandy Welch, the miniseries was directed by Julian Farino:



"OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" (1998) Photo Gallery

Looking Beyond "NORTH AND SOUTH"

LOOKING BEYOND "NORTH AND SOUTH"

In the past year, I have become increasingly obsessed with costume dramas based upon British literature. My obsession has not only focused upon movies and miniseries based on the many movie and television adaptations, but also on various British novels. Ranked near the top of the list of my favorite stories is the 2004 BBC miniseries, ”NORTH AND SOUTH”.

Adapted by Sandy Welch from Elizabeth Gaskell’s 1855 novel, ”NORTH AND SOUTH” told the story of a former clergyman’s daughter named Margaret Hale, who follows her uprooted parents to the Northern city of Milton; and John Thornton, a cotton mill owner who ends up befriending Margaret’s father and falling in love with her. Anyone familiar with Gaskell’s novel and the four-part miniseries would know that both Margaret and John endured a series of misunderstandings, quarrels, their relatives, external crises, and a marriage proposal gone wrong before they end up happily engaged. Yet, the question remains . . . what happened to the couple following the wedding? Did they end up ”happily ever after”?

Lately, I have become aware of a growing number of sequels based upon Jane Austen’s novels. This should not be surprising, considering the obsession that has surrounded the late 18th/early 19th century author for the past fifteen years. Most of these sequels tend to be follow-ups to the novelist’s most famous work, ”Pride and Prejudice”. I have never experienced any inclination to read any of these sequels in the past. And if I must be honest, any inclination remains dormant within me. But in the wake of becoming a fan of the ”NORTH AND SOUTH” miniseries, I found myself wondering if any writers or fans have ever considered writing a sequel to Gaskell’s novel.

I have come across some fan fiction based upon the novel. But most of these stories tend to focus solely on Margaret and John’s romance. Yes, I realize that it was the story’s romance – and especially Richard Armitage’s image as John Thornton – that made the miniseries become so popular with television viewers during the past 6 years or so. But for me and a good number of other fans, ”NORTH AND SOUTH” was more than just about the romance and leading actor. The social upheavals and culture clashes that permeated the story allowed an interesting glimpse into mid-Victorian English society and the differences in class and region. If someone ever decided to continue Margaret and John Thornton’s story, how would he or she do it? Would that writer merely focus upon the romance or follow Gaskell’s example by continuing the exploration of Victorian society? I personally believe that to write an effective sequel to ”North and South”, a writer would have to consider the following:

*the strong wills and temper of the two protagonists
*the protagonists’ family members
*the protagonists’ friendship with Nicholas Higgins and the union movement
*historical backdrop of the cotton trade in mid 19th century

Below is a more in-depth look into these topics:




Margaret Hale and John Thornton Relationship

I am certain that many fans of Gaskell’s novel and the 2004 miniseries sighed with pleasure . . . and relief when Margaret Hale and John Thornton finally acknowledged their love for each other by the end of the story. But one has to consider certain facts. One, love alone cannot always sustain a successful relationship. Two, despite the improvement in their respective characters, the cores of Margaret and John’s personalities will remain constant. One should anticipate future storms in the Hale-Thornton marriage.





Family Relations

Since the novel and the miniseries ended with Margaret and John’s engagement, fans can assume that the pair will eventually become husband and wife. Which means that they will have to deal with their respective in-laws.

One would be inclined to assume that John would not have to deal with in-laws on a daily basis, considering that Margaret’s parents were dead, her cousins living in London and her brother Frederick living in Spain. Margaret, on the other hand, will have two in-laws to deal with – John’s younger sister, the silly Fanny; and his indomitable mother, Mrs. Hannah Thornton. Considering John and Mrs. Thornton’s low opinion of Fanny, the latter should prove to be more of a problem for them, instead of Margaret. The worst she would have to contend with the occasional inane comment from Fanny or the latter’s barely concealed jealousy of her older brother. Mrs. Thornton might prove to be another matter. I doubt that John’s mother had not forgotten Margaret’s rejection of John’s first marriage proposal or the mild scandal regarding Margaret’s appearance at the rail station with her brother Frederick. And the older woman has never been fond of younger one. Considering her personality, I would not be surprised if Mrs. Thornton ends up developing a slight resentment toward Margaret’s financial rescue of Marlborough Mills. One can easily look forward to fireworks between Margaret and her new mother-in-law.

As I had earlier pointed out, there would be a strong possibility of John avoiding any conflict with any of his in-laws, due to the deaths of Margaret’s parents and the scattered locations of her surviving relations. But the possibilities remain. After all, Margaret does have close relationships with her Cousin Edith Shaw Lennox and Aunt Shaw, who live in London. The chances of her and John making family visits to the south remain strong. The London family would probably be disappointed in Margaret’s marriage to John and her second rejection of Edith’s brother-in-law, Henry Lennox. And judging from the Great Exhibition scene featured in the miniseries’ third episode, they did not seem enamored of John. Although Margaret’s brother Frederick lives in Spain, both she and John could afford to pay him a visit. But I wonder if that visit would prove to be congenial. Frank had clearly expressed his contempt for John as a “tradesman” in the miniseries’ third episode. I doubt that one rebuke from Margaret would have changed his opinion. And I can foresee a chilly response from Frank, for his new “tradesman” brother-in-law.

Overall, in-law troubles for both Margaret and John strike me as very plausible in a sequel.





Nicholas Higgins and the Union

I wonder if many fans of both the Gaskell novel and the 2004 miniseries would view Margaret and John’s friendship with worker/union leader Nicholas Higgins as a possible source of future conflict. I believe it is possible. Higgins is a strong-willed character with firm ideas. I simply cannot see him permanently giving up his dreams of a strong union for Milton’s mill workers, despite the setback featured in Episodes 2 and 3, and his friendship with John Thornton. And knowing John’s feelings regarding unions and his own strong will, I cannot see him supporting any future efforts to begin one. There could be a chance of a future clash between the two men if a new union is pursued. Margaret might find herself in the middle of such a clash, considering her closer friendship with Higgins and her love for John. Such a storyline could prove to be very interesting in a sequel.







Cotton Trade and the U.S. Civil War

Although I am not certain, I suspect that many fans would never associate the topic of slavery and the U.S. Civil War with Gaskell’s novel or the miniseries. Yet, I do recall a scene in which John and other Milton cotton mill owners had engaged in a conversation about purchasing cotton from countries other than the United States. John insisted that he would continue purchasing American cotton, due to its superior quality. If someone ever decided to write a sequel to ”North and South”, I wonder if the author would set the story a few years following Margaret and John’s engagement. Or would the author allow their tale to continue into the 1860s? If the latter does happen, chances are Marlborough Mill and other mills throughout Great Britain will suffer the effects of the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865).

That particular war managed to deprive many British mill owners of raw cotton for their factories. In return, the British cotton manufacturing business suffered a major economic depression, due to the Confederates’ policy of withholding cotton in exchange for diplomatic recognition and aid from Great Britain. Since the Confederacy never received official recognition or aid, the British mill owners suffered.

Not only could the growing issue of slavery and the American Civil War should have a profound effect upon the Thorntons’ profits. Both issues could be used as potential conflict between Margaret and John. I would not be surprised if concern for his mill would lead to John developing an anti-abolition or pro-Confederate stance. And considering her sympathies toward Milton’s mill workers, I could see Margaret developing a pro-abolition or pro-Union stance. However, a part of me suspects that many writers would go out of their way to avoid the topic of slavery, the Civil War and their effect upon Britain’s cotton manufacturing industry. Since Gaskell’s novel and the 2004 miniseries embraced social issues, it would be a pity if this never happened.




Conclusion

If there is one thing I enjoyed about Elizabeth Gaskell’s novel and its 2004 television adaptation was that both turned out to be a well-written saga that combined romance, family strife and social issues. I believe that this combination could be repeated in a sequel to ”North and South”. This sequel could continue the exploration of Margaret Hale and John Thornton’s relationship through their own personalities, family connections, their friendship with Nicholas Higgins and the economic repercussions of slavery and the U.S. Civil War on Britain’s cotton industry and Northern England’s economy. I could go as far to say that a sequel to ”North and South” has the potential to be just as fascinating as Gaskell’s original novel. However, with so many sequels and spin-offs to Jane Austen’s novels still being written, I suspect that such a novel will never be written.

"EMMA" (2009) Review

"EMMA" (2009) Review

After a great deal of delay, I finally sat down to watch ”EMMA”, the latest adaptation of Jane Austen’s 1815 novel. First seen on the BBC during the fall of 2009, this four-part miniseries had been adapted by Sandy Welch and directed by Jim O’Hanlon.

”EMMA” followed the story of Emma Woodhouse, the younger daughter of a wealthy landowner in Regency England. As a dominant figure in the provincial world of fictional Highbury, Emma believed that she was a skilled matchmaker and repeatedly attempted to meddle in the love lives of others. After successfully arranging the recent marriage of her governess, Miss Anne Taylor, to another local landowner named Mr. Weston; Emma set out to make a poor young boarder at a local girls’ school named Harriet Smith her new protégé. Unfortunately, her plans to find a new husband for Harriet ended in disaster.

I have been aware of other adaptations of ”EMMA” for the past decade-and-a-half, including the 1996 Miramax movie that starred Gwyneth Paltrow and the 1996 ITV version, starring Kate Beckinsale. And considering that I quickly became a major fan of the Paltrow version, I found myself curious to see how this recent four-part miniseries would compare. Many fans seemed to believe that the miniseries format allow this version to be superior over the others. After all, the format allowed screenwriter Sandy Welch to follow Austen’s novel with more detail. Other fans still view the Miramax version as the one superior to others. There are fans who viewed the Beckinsale version as the best. And many have a high regard for the modern day version, ”CLUELESS”, which starred Alicia Silverstone. And there are even those who believe that the 1972 miniseries, which starred Doran Godwin as the most faithful, and therefore the best. My opinion? I will admit that I became a fan of this miniseries, just as quickly as I became a fan of the Paltrow movie.

One of the aspects that I love about ”EMMA” was the main character’s backstory featured in the miniseries’ first five to ten minutes. Most fans of Austen’s novel frowned upon this introduction, considering that it was not featured in the novel. Not only did I enjoy it, I believe the sequence provided a possible explanation for Mr. Woodhouse’s agoraphobia and fear of losing his daughters, Emma and the older Isabella. I also enjoyed the miniseries’ photography. First, cinematographer Adam Suschitzky shot the series with rich colors – mainly bold and pastels. Also, both Suschitzky and director Jim O’Hanlon did an excellent job in filming the series with some provocative shots – many of them featuring windows. One of my favorite shots featured moments in Episode Two in which O’Hanlon, Suschitzky and film editor Mark Thornton cleverly conveyed the change of seasons from winter to early spring. Contributing to the miniseries’ colorful look were costumes supervised by Amanda Keable. They perfectly blended with Suschitzky’s photography.

I confess that I have never read ”EMMA”. I hope to do so in the near future. I could say this is the reason why I had no problems with the changes featured in Sandy Welch’s screenplay, whereas a good number of Austen’s fans did. The biggest complaint seemed to be that Welch did not convey much of the author’s language or dialogue. I guess I could not care less, especially after I had learned that Emma Thompson’s screenplay for the 1995 adaptation of ”SENSE AND SENSIBILITY” had very little of Austen’s dialogue. I believe that Welch did an excellent job in adapting ”EMMA”. She (along with stars Romola Garai and Jonny Lee Miller) captured the chemistry and wit of Emma and Mr. Knightley with some very funny banter. The screenplay also featured some comic moments that either left me smiling or laughing heartily. Those scenes included Mr. Elton’s attempts to woo Emma, while she drew a picture of Harriet; Mr. Woodhouse’s consistent reluctance to leave Hatfield (most of the time); and Emma’s first meeting with Mr. Elton’s new bride, the obnoxious and less wealthy Augusta Hawkins Elton. But Emma’s hostile soliloquy, following her meeting with Mrs. Elton, left me in stitches. I thought it was one of the funniest moments in the entire miniseries. But ”EMMA” was not all laughs. Welch’s screenplay also featured some poignant and romantic moments between Emma and Mr. Knightley. And this is the only version of the Austen novel that truly conveyed the poignant and warm relationship between Emma and her father.

However, I did have some problems with ”EMMA”. Most viewers seemed to be of the opinion that Episodes One and Two were a bit off or that they barely captured the novel’s spirit. Most of my problems with the miniseries stemmed from Episode Four, the last one. There seemed to be something heavy-handed about the Box Hill sequence and I do not know whether to blame the actors, O’Hanlon’s direction or Welch’s screenplay. This heavy-handedness could have been deliberate, due to the sequence occurring on a hot day. But I am not certain. Some of the dialogue struck me as a bit clunky – especially those moments in which Frank Churchill and Mr. Weston tried to use clever words to praise Emma. Rupert Evans’ portrayal of Frank in this scene struck me as oppressive. And I barely missed Emma’s insult to Miss Bates, due to Romola Garai’s performance. She almost threw away the line. I realize that it was Jane Fairfax who refused to see Emma, following the Box Hill picnic in the novel, instead of Miss Bates. Which is exactly what Welch added in her screenplay. Pity. I think it would have been more dramatic if the screenwriter had not been so faithful to Austen’s novel and allow Miss Bates to reject Emma’s presence following the picnic. Just as writer-director Douglas McGrath did in his adaptation in the 1996 Miramax film. And Welch’s screenplay never allowed viewers to witness Harriet Smith’s reaction to Emma and Mr. Knightley’s engagement . . . or her reconciliation with Robert Martin.

Despite any misgivings I might have about ”EMMA”, I really enjoyed it. And a great deal of my enjoyment came from Romola Garai’s portrayal of the titled character. Despite a few moments of garrulous mannerisms, I found her performance to be a delight. Her Emma Woodhouse did not seem to be that much of a meddler – except in regard to Harriet’s relationship with Robert Martin. But she did inject her performance with an arrogance that usually comes from a privileged youth that believes he or she is always right. And I absolutely adored her hostile rant against the newly arrived Mrs. Elton. Not only did she have a strong chemistry with Rupert Evans (Frank Churchill), but also with Michael Gambon, who portrayed Mr. Woodhouse. In fact, Garai and Gambon effectively conveyed a tender daughter-father relationship. Yet, her chemistry with Jonny Lee Miller surprisingly struck the strongest chord. I really enjoyed the crackling banter between them and their developing romance. Most fans had complained about her penchant for being a bit too expressive with her eyes. That did not bother me one bit. However, I found one moment in her performance to be over-the-top – namely the scene in which Emma expressed dismay at leaving Mr. Woodhouse alone in order to marry Mr. Knightley.

Speaking of the owner of Donwell, many fans of the novel had expressed dismay when Jonny Lee Miller was cast in the role of George Knightley. Despite Miller’s previous experience with Jane Austen in two adaptations of ”MANSFIELD PARK”, most fans believed he could not do justice to the role. Many feared that he was too young for the role. I found this ironic, considering that Miller was around the same age as the literary Mr. Knightley; whereas Jeremy Northam and Mark Strong were both a few years younger than the character. After viewing the first half of Episode One, I could tell that Miller was already putting his own stamp on the role. Thanks to Miller’s performance, I found myself contemplating another possible aspect of Knightley’s character. During his proposal to Emma in Episode Four, he admitted to being highly critical. I could not help but wonder if this trait was a manifestation of some arrogance in his character. This seemed very apparent in a scene in Episode Two in which Knightley made a critical comment about Emma’s character in an insulting manner. He was lucky that she did not respond with anything stronger than a reproachful stare. Another aspect of Miller’s performance that I enjoyed was the dry wit and observant manner that he conveyed in Mr. Knightley’s character. In the end, I found his performance to be very attractive and well done.

Michael Gambon, who happens to be a favorite of mine, gave a hilarious performance as Emma’s father, Mr. Woodhouse. I have read a few complaints that Gambon seemed too robust to be portraying the character. I found this complaint rather strange. For I had no idea that one had to look sickly in order to be a hypochondriac or an agoraphobic. I suspect that Gambon used Welch’s description of Mrs. Woodhouse’s tragic death to convey his character’s agoraphobic tendencies. This gave his character a poignant twist that blended wonderfully with his comic performance. Another performance that mixed comedy with just a touch of tragedy came from Tasmin Grey, who portrayed the impoverished Miss Bates. As from being a spinster and the poor daughter of Highbury’s former vicar, Miss Bates was also a silly and verbose woman. Grey portrayed these aspects of Miss Bates’ personality with perfect comic timing. At the same time, she did a beautiful job in conveying the character’s despair and embarrassment over her poverty. Two other performances really impressed me. One belonged to Christina Cole, who portrayed the meddling and obnoxious Mrs. Augusta Elton. Her performance seemed so deliciously funny and sharp that I believed it rivaled Juliet Stevenson’s portrayal of the same character from Douglas McGrath’s film. Almost just as funny was Blake Ralston, who portrayed Highbury’s current vicar, Mr. Elton. He did a marvelous job of portraying the vicar’s lack of backbone; and a slimy and obsequious manner, while attempting to woo Emma in Episodes One and Two.

Rupert Evans did a solid job in portraying Frank Churchill’s energetic and sometimes cruel personality. Although there were times when he threatened to overdo it. Laura Pyper (Christina Cole’s co-star from the TV series ”HEX”) gave a slightly tense performance as Jane Fairfax, Miss Bates’ accomplished niece that Emma disliked. Pyper did a solid job in portraying the reticent Jane and the tension she suffered from being Frank’s secret fiancée. Louise Dylan made an amiable, yet slightly dimwitted Harriet Martin. Although there were times when her Harriet seemed more intelligent than Emma. I do not know whether or not this was deliberate on O’Hanlon’s part.

If there is one thing I can say about ”EMMA” is that it quickly became one of my favorite Jane Austen adaptations. Yes, it had its flaws. But I believe that its virtues – an excellent adaptation by Sandy Welch, beautiful photography by Adam Suschitzky and a first-rate cast led by Romola Garai and Jonny Lee Miller – all well directed by Jim O’Hanlon. It seemed a pity that it failed to earn an Emmy nomination for Best Miniseries. And I find it even harder to believe that ”RETURN TO CRANFORD” managed to earn one and ”EMMA” did not.

"EMMA" (2009) Photo Gallery

Below are photos from the 2009 BBC miniseries, "EMMA". Directed by Jim O'Hanlon, the miniseries stars Romola Garai, Jonny Lee Miller and Michael Gambon: 



"EMMA" (2009) Photo Gallery