It was mostly not bad, except…except that this one’s Reverend Mr. Beebe was only good because he was doing an imitation of Simon Callow in the Merchant Ivory production. Where it followed the Merchant Ivory production, this version did so almost shot for shot, but with more nudity at the ol’ swimmin’ hole. The homosexual themes were brought further forward than in either Forster or Merchant-Ivory. Also, and this is a big deal, they left out portions of the book and the previous movie, but they created this weird retrospective book-ending thing where it’s all a recollection of post-WWI Lucy re-re-visiting the pensione. I don’t know how to do spoiler boxes, so I’ll stop there for now.
We watched it. I’ve seen the Merchant-Ivory version, but it’s been so long that I barely even remembered the plot much less the acting.
I didn’t like the retrospective at all - it was confusing at the beginning.
[spoiler]Also, did anyone else feel the death of George was very rushed? One minute they’re in bed, the next minute he’s dying in WWI which was confusing. At the beginning of the film, they stated it was 1922, but I think that was during the retrospective. It took us a while to figure out that the bulk of the movie took place in the teens, and that the war that George died in had to be WWI.
Also, did the Merchant-Ivory production include the death? I seem to remember it ending on a happy note. Am I imagining things?[/spoiler]
George’s death was totally tacked on. It is not a part of the novel, nor of the Merchant-Ivory production. The novel is set in 1908. WWI ended in 1918. The retrospective beginning said “1922”, but Lucy says to the carriage driver at the end that it was ten years since the first “first kiss from George” trip. It’s screwed up, several ways.
Apparently the screenwriter just decided to make some shit up. See the video here.
As far as I’m concerned, it really took away from the story. The main theme of RWAV is one of love - it’s a love story, about taking chances and finding twue wuv. George’s death and Lucy’s widowhood really spoiled it. I think the screenwriter should be spanked.
[/spoiler]
I thought Sophie Thompson was great as usual (although Maggie Smith is THE Charlotte Bartlett for all time ) and I liked the actors that played Lucy and Cecil. George came across as a bit simple minded- he had that goofy grin that just got irritating and I cringed when he said how “shhtupid” the situation was.
Also, I didn’t feel that they showed that Lucy was middle class and Cecil was in a higher class than her.
[spoiler] I will have to watch the original version repeatedly to erase the memory of this ending out of my head. Its WRONG WRONG WRONG.
On the PBS site, Andrew Davies mentions that he was inspired to put on the ending after reading some notes E.M Forster wrote about George visiting Florence many years after. So at least we know the author didn’t intend George to die (although I wonder what he intended for Lucy but afraid to find out!)[/spoiler]
I find it curious to hear the end was entirely made-up. We were confused trying to figure out when the bulk of the story occurred. The intro said 1922, ane we were all saying “Well, it couldn’t have been much more than a couple of years earlier, because then it would have been WWI.” Weren’t WE surprised!
I found it pretty “meh.” My daughter said she would have loved it if not for the final 10 minutes.
I would really pay to see a footrace between MT’s Lucy and Sally Hawkins!
Although, I must confess, as much as I enjoyed Daniel Day Lewis in the original, I often thought his approach was too broadly comical. In this version, Cecil was more of a real person that I could see a Lucy hooking up with, and then growing weary of.
I just watched it. It’s been so long since I read the story, I barely renembered it or even if I liked it. I thought this version was OK but agree that the ending was out of place on an otherwise lighthearted story.
It took me awhile to recognize Elizabeth McGovern.
Ugh. I find it hard to believe that Timothy Spall/Mark Williams/Sophie Thompson/Andrew Davies/Gabriel Yared *all together * could equal such a lousy production. Andrew Davies must be smoking crack, he really ruined a lot of the Jane Austens, too. He just hits everything with much too big a hammer; the homosexuality, the class issues, George Emerson, everything.
Somewhere along the line, screenwriters decided that audiences are too dumb to pick up on these things without having them SCREAMED INTO THEIR FACES.
I cringed from beginning to end. I thought that Lucy, Cecil, and George were all pretty wan acting jobs, too. And the retrospective–don’t get me started on the retrospective. Andrew Davies apparently doesn’t understand the first thing about Forster.
) and I liked the actors that played Lucy and Cecil. George came across as a bit simple minded- he had that goofy grin that just got irritating and I cringed when he said how “shhtupid” the situation was.
