Brideshead Revisited

I saw the new film of this book last week; it wasn't at the top of my 'to-see' list, but my daughter wanted to go, so, as we knew nobody else in our mostly male family wouldn't want to go, off we went to the local multiplex.
We thought we were going to be the only people in the audience (we were, once before, when we saw the Hamlet set in a present-day New York loft apartment, starring Ethan Hawke. It was quite good actually, but a rather weird experience, watching Hamlet in a deserted multiplex auditorium). But 2 more people turned up, so the 4 of us settled down, rattling around in a huge cinema.

Brideshead is something I feel very attached to; I read the book back in the 1970s, so I was very much the age my daughter is now when I first encountered it. I read it several times, luxuriating in Waugh's perfect prose and inimitable storytelling. I went on to read most of Waugh's other novels, and then his diaries and letters. His l;ife was fascinating - although far removed from my own world, I was seduced, and still am, by the whole Waugh milieu.
Anyway, along came the ITV serial in about 1981, starring Jeremy Irons and Anthony Andrews, which of course became a benchmark for so-called 'heritage' drama serials. In the days when there were only 3 channels, it became compulsive viewing for millions, and the nation was riveted. I remember looking forward with high excitement to the final episode, which was screened just before Christmas. The nation was frozen under a blanket of snow and ice; the Solidarity protests were underway in Poland, and people over there were starving; the Tory spending cuts were taking hold and the country was still only beginning to recover from the late 70s recession, yet we were all held in thrall to this elegy for British country house aristocratic life before WWII.
Jeremy Irons essentially read the book as a voiceover, and his elegaic, understated style set the tone for the whole dramatisation. John Mortimer wrote the script and I can't see any deviation from Waugh. Mortimer is a socialist atheist, about as far removed from Waugh as is possible, yet he captured the spirit of the book perfectly. The casting was perfect - I've said this before, but it's one of my bugbears, so I'll say it again - they could all speak Waugh's dialogue, and, try as they might, none of the actors in the new film could. Emme Thompson as Lady Marchmain did her best, but even she couldn't manage it. Claire Bloom played her in the TV series, and portrayed her icy elegance perfectly. Thompson was good, but somehow too robust, and coul;dn't quite manage to excise the estuary from her voice. Patrick Malahide as Charles's father did better, as did Michael Gambon as Lord Marchmain, but when you know they were following in the footsteps of John Gielgud and Laurence Olivier then even these fine actors are going to seem somewhat diminished. Gielgud caught Mr Ryder's unworldly yet lethal self-absorption so perfectly, it's hard to imagine it being done any better.
I must also mention Phoebe Nicholls as Cordelia. She captured her heartfelt goodness perfectly. She only made the most perfunctory appearance in the new film - a merely token presence only, but in the book, and the TV series, she's central. She's a living embodiment of how Catholic lfe should be lived, and example to all the other characters, and she could have been insufferable, but Nicholls made her enchanting. I suppose the filmmakers either couldn't find anyone who could play the part convincingly, or they just couldn't be bothered with her, seeing her as just a priggish goody-goody.

Anyway, what was good about the new film was Ben Whishaw as Sebastian. I love Whishaw as an actor, and I think he's something very special. He had some bad reviews and I couldn't find anyone who was prepared to say a good word about his performance. But I though he captured Sebastian's damaged fragility perfectly. Anthony Andrews was of course superb, and managed to convey Sebastian's self-knowledge and deliberate self-destruction beautifully, but he was physically wrong - too tall and too robust. He towered over Irons which somehow seemed wrong, while Whishaw seemed as is he might break at any moment, which is how I always imagined Sebastian.
Mortimer, in spite of his atheism, never shied away from the religion, which is central to the book. Waugh says in the preface that it's the subject, but the film pushed it aside as a kind of annoying extra that they had to somehow fit in, but wasn't really interested. Mortimer was interested, and in the book Charles comes to recognise the operation of grace - something which the film ignores. Film Charles remains a doubter, which is wrong. Which makes Julia's refusal to continue their relationship meaningless. And that's another thing - Julia. Diana Quick in the TV series was perfect, brittle, but vulnerable. Again Hayley Atwell did her best but was too solid. You just couldn't imagine her giving up Charles for God.

So, a missed opportunity perhaps, but I don't think the book is filmable nowadays on any level. You have to be able to call on people who are prepared to take Waugh seriously, and I don't think any one is these days. Oh well....I suppose we'll never see another good Waugh adaptaion, though there are plenty out there already. Kristin Scott Thomas in A Handful of Dust - another actress who can speak properly And does anyone remember the marvellous Sword of Honour BBC serial in the 1960s, with Edward Woodward? A creditable version was done a few years ago with Daniel Craig which I remember as being rather good, but, in the end, the books are so good that they spring to life in one's head.

Tess of the D'Urbervilles

Thomas Hardy's book has been dramatised before, notably by Roman Polanski nearly 30 years ago. I saw it at the time, but I need to revisit it -Nastassia Kinski was Tess and that's about all I can remember.
I first read the book as a young teenager; I'd never heard of Hardy until I read an article in the teen magazine Petticoat when I was about 12 or 13. Petticoat was a new publication which sought to capture the burgeoning early-60s ethos and attempted to be different from longer-established mags such as Jackie. It contained the usual cartoon-strips and articles on fashion, makeup and relationships, but it also touched on cultural topics, and its earliest issues had celebrities talking about their favourite books. Jean Shrimpton, the Kate Moss of the 60s, talked about Tess of the D'Urbervilles and what it meant to her, and I was captivated. Something I've never forgotted was her description of the passage where the dairymaids cross a stream on their way to church dressed in their best clothes. Shrimpton talked about the skirts of their white muslin dresses flying up and butterflies being trapped in them, and what a miraculous image that was. I was captivated and resolved to read Hardy as soon as I could.
Of course I wasn't aware that the 60s saw a renaissance of interest in Hardy's novels. He'd fallen out of favour since his death, but his books had begun to appear on the 'O' and 'A' Level syllabuses. We did The Woodlanders for 'O'Level and The Return of the Native for 'A' Level, and we all loved them, but Tess, and Jude the Obscure were not surprisingly kept off the syllabus. Of course these two, both emotional rollercoasters are strong meat, and were my favourites. Tess is the perfect book for romantically-inclined adolescents, but I think it really must have beed a sixties thing, as ny children, when asked to read Hardy at school, were unmoved. I don't know it was because they were boys, but I have a feeling that Hardy's books caught the temperature of the times, and the 80s were less sympathetic to his work.

Anyway, the TV series. This production was a typical 2000s BBC costume drama; high production values, great care lavished on sets and costunes, a lush musical score and easy-on-the-eye actors. This can have mixed results - for example, Gemma Arterton as Tess looked perfect, very much as I'd always imagined Tess; tall, beautiful and with a slightly other-worldly appearance, a bit apart from everyone else, with a faraway look in her eyes. The actor who played Angel though, was wrong, wrong, wrong. He looked far too young, and had a petulant look on his face, as if he was always about to stick his lower lip out. He was also too small. I'd always seen Angel as a big man; fair-haired, yes and a chilly character, but he was a man of weight and substance. This version was a callow adolescent. But maybe it's my vision that's wrong.
Anyway I enjoyed the first 3 episodes, but the final one dragged, and although I dutifully watched it through to the end, I'd lost interest long before. Tess's fate left me unmoved, and I'm not sure why. I suppose I just didn't believe a word of it. The thing with Hardy is that you do believe it when you're reading it, however preposterous the story.

Anyway, time to have another look at the Polanski, I think.

The Jewel in the Crown

A friend lent me the DVD boxed set of this famous TV series from the early 80s and I've just finished watching it. Of course I'd seen the original when it was first broadcast, so I was familiar with it, but that was over 20 years ago, so it was an interesting experience to revisit it.
I suppose the first thing that strikes one is that it was an ITV series. It's inconceivable now that the channel would be remotely capable of making a prestigious series like that. They'd recently produced Brideshead Revisited which was an enormous success, redefining British television drama and Jewel was another sign that the mantle of prestigious British TV drama had moved away from the BBC.
One of the most crucial points in both series was the use of eye-catching locations and film, as opposed to studio production recorded on videotape, which had been the Beeb's standard mmode of production ever since recording had begun in the early 1960s. They'd invested heavily in their studios at the newly-built BBC Television Centre, and filming on location had been sidelined. So the ITV series, both produced by Granada which was fast becoming a powerhouse of production, were a serious challenge to the BBC's hegemony.
Jewel is graced by marvellous performances, notably from the peeless Peggy Ashcroft. Her portrayal of Barbie Batchelor, the elderly missionary who has spent most of her adult life in India, and is now thrust aside as so much useless detritusas the country edges towards independence, is heartbreaking. Her lower-middle-class origins, her lonely spinsterhood, her gradual exclusion from British Raj society as everyone jostles for survival, is one of the greatest performances I have ever seen on television. I must also mention Judy Parfitt, lurching genteely around the comfortable bungalows and terraces of the Raj, glass in one hand and cigarette in the other, all the time ruthlessly disposing of anyone whose face doesn't fit, is frighteningly plausible . And Geraldine James and Susan Wooldridge, who play the young women caught up in it all - part of it, yet seeing all too clearly what is happening, are both superb.
I suppose I found myself thinking - how could I not? - that, not only would it be impossible to produce anything on this scale - certainly not without American money - but where would you find the actors who would be capable of depicting the British in India. For a start, the accents - is there anyone under the age of, say, 50, who could produce the sort of cut-glass accent that would be essential. Estuary would surely creep in, however hard anyone would try.
And of course, the subject. It's the story of the British, so, while Indian society is very much there, it's always peripheral to the main action. It could not be made now, however much money anyone came up with, because of that. A shame, but I guess that's progress for you. We're different now, and, while we've lost something, we've gained as well. We now have The Wire instead, which is a pretty good deal in my book.
Anyway, I still enjoyed it enormously, relishing the slow unfolding of the story, the camerawork, the locations, the acting, the lack of jittery camerawork, and the fact that I didn't have to switch the subtitles on to hear the dialogue - perfect diction all round!

The Forsyte Saga

A friend has just lent me the boxed set of videos of the original 1967 BBC serialisation of the Forsyte Saga, and I've found myself completely hooked. Why? It's ancient telly, black and white, videotaped in cramped BBC studios. The hairstyles and costumes are antideluvian; a lot of work's gone into the costumes and set dressing, and I know that at the time it was considered an expensive production, but, by today's standards, the whole thing looks rickety and a bit makeshift. And then, there's the mid-60s hair and make-up, with the women looking like Chelsea dolly-birds in Victorian costume. Nearly everyone is clearly wearing an alarming wig - hairsprayed to death.
The concept of period authenticity was in its infancy in the mid-60s, but the Edwardian period was still a living memory to many, and there was an authenticity about the tone which seems remarkable these days. The actors knew how to speak Galsworthy's dialogue convincingly, which they don't today, so we now get lumbered with Edwardians speaking Estuary English in too may production. So the production may look pretty flakey, but it sounds brilliant, like a window on a lost world.
Anyway, I have to declare an interest - a few years ago I researched the serial as part of an academic thesis, so I know an awful lot about it, though I could only manage to get a video with the first 4 episodes so this is the first time I've been able to watch all 26 episodes.
I do remember watching it when it was first broadcast, as I was still a young teenager who was usually in on Sunday nights. I invariably had homework, which I always left until the last minute, and ended up doing it late on Sunday night, so watching The Forsyte Saga, in those long-ago pre-video days, was probably a good excuse for putting it off.
In spite of the clunkiness, then, it's compulsive viewing. The whole thing is basically a high-class soap opera, and in those days there wasn't any such thing so the novelty value was enormous. Each episode ended on a cliffhanger and the serial introduced compulsive viewing to the bulk of TV viewers. Soaps barely existed - Coronation Street and Z Cars had begun but this was different. Of course the original novel was a major blockbuster when it was published and there must have been many people still alive in 1967 who could remember its publication and knew the book well.
It was an astonishing world-wide success. I've seen documentation stored in the wonderful BBC Written Archive Centre which tell of it's extraordinary impact in, for example, both the US and Soviet Russia. Public events were postponed all over the world so that people could watch it, and audiences all over the world were enthralled.
It resurrected Kenneth More's career, which had slid downhill badly after his affair with Angela Douglas, many years younger, became public. His experience and charisma reminded audiences why he had been so popular and his presence was crucial to the success of the production. But it was Eric Porter's performance as Soames and Susan Hampshire as Fleur which captivated audiences.
Anyway, it still stands up, whereas the recent lavish ITV production a few years ago has sunk without trace. The 1967 production is now available on DVD and the reviews from punters on Amazon testify to its enduring quality. Old telly has become a cottage industry and I found a leaflet insert in my latest Radio Times which advertised tons of old series which can now be acquired in box sets. The old Forsyte Saga was listed, but not the new one - says it all....

Miss Austen Regrets

I watched this last night, being unable to resist costume dramas, and it was the BBC, so my expectations were pretty high. I though it was excellent, on the whole, though with a few caveats. There seems to be a costume drama template these days - persistent, lush music, long shots of country houses, most of which are surely too grand for their inhabitants, and nice costumes (of course). Productions which diverge from this pattern, such as the recent Bleak House, stand out startlingly, and I wish there was a bit more innovation and imagination. It's as if the 1995 Pride and Prejudice, which was such a stunning success, has redefined cotume drama for ever, and that model has become set in stone.
Anyway, this wasn't bad - I was intrigued and attracted by the casting of Olivia Williams, an actress who I think is shamefully underused. I remember her in Rushmore, and The Sixth Sense, an interesting British presence in these 2 US films, and she's been in several films since, but nothing prominent. I see on the IMDB that she's had 2 children in the last 3 years, so that would explain quite a bit. Maybe she has one of those interesting faces that looks better in middle age, and as I see she's nearly 40 I suspect we may see more from her.
She was excellent, I thought - endowing Jane Austen with wit, character and intelligence. Her sister Cassandra was played by Greta Scacchi - unrecognisable. I didn't realise it was her until I read an article in the paper. She's aged with dignity as well, and it was nice to see a programme with 2 middle-aged, Botox-free women in starring roles.
Both women reinvented their characters for the 21st century, but there's nothing wrong with that, period productions have done it since the dawn of cinematic time. But what's refreshing is to see actresses with intelligence and lack of vanity, making their characters spring to life for us. It's not new, but it's not always the case. It's essential, for period drama to work, that we can believe in the characters, and this production succeeded admirably.

The Wire

I've just finished watching all 3 seasons of The Wire. The first two I rented from Amazon, and the last one was a box set borrowed from a friend of my son's, so I was able to get through the series quickly. That's the one that's freshest in my mind, so I'll focus on series 3.
I suppose it's been compared to The Sopranos many times, and, offhand, I certainly can't think of any other TV series that compares in terms of character, dialogue and plot development. It's n ot like any other police series I've ever seen - it's not just cops v villains - there's the police administration, city politics, and the personal lives, beliefs and difficulties of the protagonists, all of which play important roles.
The Wire is set in west Baltimore, a crumbling, decaying ghetto in which drugs form the basis of the economy. The inhabitants attempt to lead lives that do not depend on drugs but it's a struggle. The police are hardworking, lazy, venal, selfless, committed, time-serving, idealist and cynical - just like the people they're policing. The drug runners are as riven with in-fighting and internecine warfare as the police; all these elements make for compelling drama, but the quality of the script lifts it way above the run of even the best of most TV drama. It was broadcast on HBO in America, always a pretty good pointer to quality, but it hasn't found a slot on British TV, except on the obscure digital channel FX, so, apart from illegal downloading, DVD is the only practical way to see to see it.
Apparently Season 4 is about to be released on DVD and Season 5 (the last) has just premiered on HBO in the States, so there's more to come. TV of this quality doesn't come along too often, and, I have to say virtually all the best drama is American. I don't know what the problem is over here but I rarely bother with most British drama these days.
I've seen it described as 'Balzacian' and certainly the richness and complexity of the narrative stands comparison with great 19th century novels. Six Feet Under and The Sopranos are in that league but The Wire is in a category of its own. The characters are richly-drawn and many-layered, and as someone on the IMDB commented, there are no minor characters - some just have more screen time than others, everyone plays a part. Special mention, though, must be made of Omar - a Shakespearean character if ever I saw one.

Looking forward to series 4 soon - March 10th on DVD.....

The West Wing

I'm working my way through series 5 of The West Wing at the moment, as my son, another addict, and has the entire series on DVD has lent me both 5 & 6, and he needs them back soon to lend to newly-addicted friends. He's coming over from Ireland next week so I need to finish it then. So I'm furiously watching as much as possible.
Of course, I saw them when they were first screened on Channel 4, and when they migrated to More4, the digital channel. Apparently it achieved low ratings, but I'm also very aware that the following it attracted, small though it may have been, was passionately loyal. A long-running thread appeared on the Guardian messageboard which started at the beginning of the third series and continued until long past the seventh series, the last.
I have to say that I loved it from the start. It presents a picture of US politics as it might exist in an alternative universe. Jed Bartlet, the president, is a liberal, Democrat, Nobel prize-winning academic, surrounded by equally-liberal heartfelt Democrats who believe, above all, in the Constitution, to which they are dedicated to upholding. All of them have their faults - Bartlet's is a patrician arrogance, which comes from his impeccable liberalism, and some of the most entertaining episodes concern his principles coming up against reality.
One of my favourite characters is Toby, the Press Secretary; often conflicted, tortured, bad-tempered, but with his heart firmly in the right place, he gives the series a welcome acerbity.
The First Lady, is a card-carrying feminist, whose beliefs often clash with the realities of government, and some of the best episodes concern very real moral, political and ethical dilemmas. A solution is rarely found, and this is the whole point. In a democratic republic there are never any easy answers, and this is the series' glory. The best episodes dramatise unresolvable problems and compromises have to be reached; this is, and must be, always better than the alternative. The US is portrayed as the best form of government there is, with all its imperfections, a picture of government as it should function, not, of course, as it actually does.
The acting is top-notch; Martin Sheen plays Bartlet, making a character who might have been insufferable in other hands, deeply human. We don't always like him very much, but we see why he's President, the buck always stopping at his door.
Religion also plays a part, which would be unthinkable in this country - Bartlet, a Catholic, is often seen tussling with God, frequently arguing with Him, dramatising the very real battles between Faith and politics. This was seen most effectively in an episode when Bartlet, after the funeral of his beloved secretary, who was killed in an accident, standing alone in the cathedral after everyone else had gone, contemptuously lit a cigarette, then threw it to the ground, angrily stamping it out.
After four series, Aaron Sorkin, the originator of the series, left, and his sharp, witty scripts went with him. It was never quite the same after, but the remaining three series were still a treat, following the fortunes of the presidency as it gradually acquired 'lame duck' status. As the government wound down it all began to fall apart, and soul-searching, self-interested careerism and fear began to take hold among the staff, their individual destinies becoming compelling.
A new President was elected at the end, the implausible Latino Santos. I don't know anyone who didn't prefer his rival Republican, played with consummate finesse by Alan Alda.
Its lack of cynicism was what was most refreshing about it - instead of depicting politicians as venal and self-serving, they were idealistic, with the best of intentions, if flawed in their execution. I miss it badly, but the DVDs of the 7 series remain compulsive viewing. I always watch it with the subtitles switched on so as not to miss any of the dialogue, which is unparalleled anywhere else.
The most interesting Presidential election for years gets going in 2008, and Barack Obama, the most West Wing-like candidate imaginable, is one of the favourites. The West Wing has therefore become even more essential, and perhaps more realistic after the catastrophic Bush regime, which, with any luck, may seem a bad dream by this time next year.

Ballet Shoes

I watched BBC's Ballet Shoes on Boxing Day. I had to - Ballet Shoes was a major part of my childhood, as I suspect it was for many girls growing up in the 50s and early 60s. The cast looked good, with reliable performers such as Victoria Wood, Emilia Fox, Harriet Walter, the peerless Eileen Atkins, and the impressive and highly promising Marc Warren.
None of them disappointed, and the young actresses who played the Fossil girls were well-directed. The costumes and scenery were meticulously realised, and the accents were better than usual. The older generation, of course, were fine, but Fox and Warren did very well indeed, and the girls who played the Fossil sisters did as well as could have been expected.
My main gripe, though was the changes to the story. I realise that some had to be made, but these were tiresome. Warren played Mr Smith, a single gentlemen lodger who runs a garage - in the book, Mr and Mrs Smith are a couple. This allowed the creation of a spurious love interest for Sylvia, the girls' guardian, and we had to have a ridiculous wedding scene at the end. In the book Sylvia remains single, accompanying Pauline to Hollywood, but this was clearly unacceptable for TV controllers. Sigh......
I got my Puffin edition of the book out from my shelf of children's books (I never throw anything away!) and had a look. It's an incredibly matter-of-fact book, with few flights of fancy. It's based firmly on everyday life with enough wish-fulfilment to satisfy. For me, it was as fantastical as Harry Potter is to today's generation, bearing no relation to my life whatsoever. yet it was the descriptions of everyday life that I relished most. I do think reality is unnecessary for a great children's book and I devoured Streatfield's stories of girls (they were all girls) achieving stardom against the odds, reading them over and over again.
The production truncated a great deal, as I suppose it had to, but it was an enjoyable way to spend 90 minutes, though it's 9.00 start was clearly aimed at 50-somethings who knew the book. I can't imagine it would grab any of today's 12-year-olds - but who knows?

My Boy Jack

My Boy Jack was on ITV this evening, Remembrance Sunday. I watched it as I was a) intrigued by the story of Kipling's extremely shortsighted son, who was killed in battle in World War I, aged eighteen, b) interested in seeing if Daniel Radcliffe could act at all, and c) trying out an ITV dramas again, just in case it was any good.
Well, it wasn't. It seems that no young actor today is remotely capable of the received pronunciation that would have been the norm in 1914 - even older actors struggle with it. But, to make matters worse, the dialogue was frequently dreadful - it's as if being on ITV means that everyone has to talk as if they're on Eastenders. Carey Mulligan, who played Kipling's daughter was especially at fault, and I cringed every time she opened her mouth.
Radcliffe valiantly tried his best, and put on a creditrable performance, but his part was grossly underwritten, and he really didn't have much to do other than lend his name to the production for publicity purposes.
I don't know a great deal about Kipling, but what I do know is that he was an extremely complex, intelligent and perceptive man. Here, he was a mouthpiece for simplistic patriotism. Once again, I was left deeply dissatisfied by an ITV drama, which, when you consider the great productions, such as Brideshead Revisited, it has made, is very sad. I tend to have zero expectations these days, and end up wishing I hadn't wasted my time. Meanwhile there's a new BBC production of Cranford coming soon for which I have high expectations.

The Sopranos

Although I saw it when it was on TV a while ago, I decided to watch the latest, sixth, and final series of The Sopranos on DVD, so I'm renting it from Amazon. My son, who's living with me at the moment, hadn't seen any of it, although he's seen all five of the preceding series, so it seemed like a good idea to watch it again.
Well, what can I say.....it made me want to see the whole lot again from the beginning. I've heard it compared to King Lear in its complexity, depth and range, and I can't disagree. There is so much going on in each episode - it repays repeated viewing.
Series 6 starts off conventionally, (by the Sopranos' standards) with Tony, the capo, having to deal with his ageing uncle Junior's increasing dementia, and the associated family conflicts. Junior shoots him at the end of the episode, and he is now in hospital in a coma, suffering a succession of near-death experiences which dramatise a major crisis of identity.
It's the character development that stands out - and the series' dramatisation of the way in which each generation in its turn tries to deal with the burden of the preceding generation's misdemeanours. Tony's inner life is also a major theme, and his regular visits to Dr Melfi, his psychoanalyst provide a running commentary on the action.
The language is a baroque distillation of Italian-American English, and in every episode there's a line or two that takes your breath away. I'm seriously considering getting the whole thing on DVD and watching it with the subtitles turned on as I'm sure I must have missed a great deal. Anyway - I've stayed spoiler-free, so am awaiting with huge anticipation the last half of series 6 which apparently we may get later this year, which gives us the finale. I know it's been controversial but that's all I know - what series ending isn't controversial?

Persuasion

Last night I watched the last of ITV's Jane Austen adaptations, Persuasion. I hadn't watched the others; I wasn't attracted by the 'modernising' spin of the publicity, but this one looked as if it might be better, and I thought the BBC's version a few years ago was superb, so was interested in seeing what ITV would make of it.
Well, it wasn't too bad. I always feel a bit weird watching ITV as I rarely see anything on the channel, just the odd South Bank Show and Champions League football match. It's like listening to Classic FM when there's nothing I want to listen to on Radio 3. But it really was a creditable effort in some ways. I liked the girl who played Anne Elliott very much, Captain Wentworth was suitably brooding and tortured, and I enjoyed Anthony Head, who was obviously enjoying himself enormously as Sir Walter Elliott. However there was too much hanging around what looked like the Cobb at Lyme Regis, though, and wet shirts, bringing back memories The French Lieutenant's Woman and Pride and Prejudice. Anne racing around Bath at the end was just silly. None of the passers by seemed remotely perturbed. In the end it looked just what it was, a 21st century girl dressed up in Regency clothes running round Bath.
I have no idea whether the adaptation was any good as I haven't read the book, but it did at least make me want to, but I also wanted to see the BBC's production again and promptly put it on my Amazon DVD list. Why are the BBC's period adaptations so much better? They aren't always, but when they really try they are peerless. Last year's Bleak House for example, fresh, imaginative, yet capturing the spirit of Dickens and the period. The past was different for heaven's sake, and that difference should be captured, not 'updated' and given a spurious modernity.

House

House is back! Channel 5 is normally uncharted territory for me, but I've made an exception for House, and for Tim Marlow's arts documentaries which manage to be accessible and engaging yet sufficiently erudite, and manage without the irritatingly unnecessary dramatised scenes and flashy camerawork which mar so many documentaries these days. Andrew Graham-Dixon's recent series on BBC-4, The Art of Eternity was a notable exception.
Anyway, I enjoy House for a variety of reasons. First, Hugh Laurie. His American accent has improved, but he still retains his English manner of speech. It helps mark him out as exceptional, giving him a quasi-mythical quality helping create an acute and distinctively un-American character who is quite clearly meant to be a Sherlock Holmes pour nos jours.
I also like his sharp and snappy coterie of Watsons, a group of intelliegent young medics who are nice to look at and have well-defined personalities. They've settled into their roles now and the characters are now fully-formed.
As usual with formula TV, the unpredictable keeps happening, to keep audience interest. This begins as a virtue, and then it becomes a formula in itself which one comes to enjoy and appreciate. This is what being a fan of a series is all about.
I don't watch much formula TVnowadays, just this and Lost, but I do have a sneaking fondness for it and like to indulge every now and then, particularly when it's as good as this. One of life's guilty pleasures

Telly on the computer

I've just watched 2 episodes of Lost on my PC - Sky One's been withdrawn from cable, and as I've watched it from the beginning, finding it strangely compulsive in a shallow kind of way, one of my sons has been supplying me with episodes downloaded from a Canadian website and burned on to DVD. So I've been able to keep up; in fact I think I might be ahead of Sky now. Such is the nature of modern technology. It got me musing about the nature of my TV viewing. I know it sounds a bit sad, but, just out of interest, I've kept a TV blog for the last few months - noting down the programmes I've watched all the way through (excluding the news and my Neighbours habit), and the medium I've used to watch it. This is actually quite interesting as it's becomae a barometer of the change in viewing habits. It's clear that I now watch less and less live TV. Most of my viewing is now DVDs of films and TV series, my own videotaping (sometimes it's the only way - still), and the useful Replay facility you get with cable, where they select a few programmes from the BBC and Channel 4 and keep them for a week. Within those categories are some sub-sections - my DVDs range from the free ones from the front of newspapers, the 3 per month I get from Amazon DVD rental, ones borrowed from various children, all of whom have collections, and downloads or copies. Plust the odd pay-per-view movie. I don't actually have very many myself, and have made a conscious decision not to collect them. I really don't see the point of accumulating DVDs just because you can - I feel overloaded with media as it is.
I don't think I'm that exceptional, but I'm sure that there are still plenty of people who just settle down to whatever's on every evening - I know, I work with a few of them. But it seems clear that more and more people are adopting habits and tailoring their viewing to suit their lifestyles - because they can.
I do know that I'm not necessarily typical - I know people who only watch Sky Sports and the odd Sky One or Channel 5 series such as CSI, indeed I remember when I was a child there were people who always watched ITV, never going near the BBC. My parents were very loyal to the BBC and rarely had ITV on, except for Take Your Pick and Double Your Money which they loved. I always felt a bit rebellious if I turned over to see what was always referred to as 'the other side'.
I still feel I have a close relationship with the Corporation and wouldn't dream of turning to anything else for those big occasions, and certainly only ever watch it for the news. It really is an extraordinary organisation - there's nothing like it anywhere else in the world. I can understand why some are suspicious of it, and mistrustful - its power is extraordinary - but I do feel the world would be a poorer place without it.
Me - I have a habit of dozing off mid-evening, so the chances of managing to see anything live at primetime all the way through, are remote. So it makes sense to watch stuff that's pre-packaged in whatever format, as I can always catch up if I do fall asleep, or watch it later in the evening when I tend to be a bit more wide-awake. I rarely watch more than 1 or 2 programmes a night at the most and my aim is entertainment that also challenges me - in fact, anything that makes me think a bit.
Anyway - I enjoyed Lost - and I expect I'll quickly get used to watching TV on the computer, just like I've got used to digital TV, DVD, video, pay-per-view etc etc.