Feeds:
Posts
Comments

JohnAtkinsonGrimshawAutumnLeeds
John Atkinson Grimshaw (136-93), Autumn, Leeds (1880s) — a Victorian conception

Dear friends and readers,

I am embarked on reading Framley Parsonage with about 30 adults (mostly retired older people) at an OLLI at George Mason University. I am enjoying the novel immensely and hope my “students” are too (probably an inappropriate noun considering its connotations as there are no exams, no essays, no certificates). How intimate the feeling Trollope creates. How he captures the rhythms of daily life as he seeks to write down all around him what is daily and he feels and sees in order to produce this so alive novel quickly.

To begin with (the term), I found myself expatiating upon what is a sequel last week and thought as sequels are so ubiquitous in this year (2015), not just of an original work, but re-boots of adaptations and sequels forty years on, I would write about sequels and what I was surprised to discover is so about Framley Parsonage. Perhaps this will interest a few readers and viewers of film adaptations, say Barchester Chronicles.

Everybody who knows anything about Trollope’s life and career knows it was Thackeray who prompted the writing of Framley Parsonage. Trollope was just then writing Castle Richmond and he had several of his early traveler’s tales available for placement. He was startled and surprised to discover the Cornhill, preceded by a buzz and hum which made it the equivalent of the New Yorker in the 1950s, had yet to secure a central part of its offering: using Fielding’s metaphor in Tom Jones, of a meal, they were without la pièce de résistance, the central irresistible chocolate and wine of a novel. In reply to Thackeray, Trollope offered short stories he had just written; he offered Castle Richmond. In a superlatively courteous reply (“My dear Trollope”), Thackeray declined and said what they wanted was another of those clerical Barsetshire stories. So Trollope set about to produce two novels at once. (If English people didn’t want to hear about the famine and Ireland, the rest of Europe did, it was published separately around the time of FP and quickly translated into 5 languages.) FP made Trollope, and on the strength of his new income, he moved to just outside London to be part of the literary world at last. In 1859 August we find him leasing Waltham House in Hertfordshire just outside London. He lived there for several years, until his income began to fall off (well after he had quit his post office job since he did before he became eligible for a pension). Nonetheless, or more than ever (he needed money now), still working for post office, and famously getting up at 4:30 (Barney, his Irish servant woke him) and writing 4 hours or so before going off to directly remunerated work; he had a traveling writer’s desk made for him so he could write while in railway carriages. Think of it as a laptop without connectivity.

The Cornhill, a central organ of mass print media in the Victorian period, its first number in fact. The Cornhill‘s mission was in part to present an image of acceptable middle to upper class life (not the reality, an idealization of reality, omitting much that was unpleasant to them, like dealing with real servants, city life); its readership could congratulate themselves upon belonging to what produced would be in good taste and the latest politics, information. The title of the first chapter was a Latin tag; someone who could not recognize that tag was a fringe person.

The book is very much a sequel, conceived as a sequel to three books Trollope had written in the near past — as ordered: The Warden (1852-53), Barchester Towers (1856) and Dr Thorne (1857), let us remember just three out of ten novels Trollope had written and published since 1845. Barchester Towers, No 2 and Dr Thorne, No 3, the second and third of these Barsetshire book were not only commercial successes, but had become identifiable Victorian-style middle class novels, and not to have read Barchester Towers especially was like not to have heard of say Downton Abbey in the last three years – where have you been, my dear? You might not have read BT or seen DA, but you should know something about it, get the references, the jokes. I’ve never watched The Sopranos and probably never will, but I know enough about it not to look unknowing when it’s brought up. Barsetshire was nearly a form of social currency, social capital, part of the habitas of cultural references. Framley Parsonage clinched it, and partly unfortunately for Trollope defined him evermore in a wider complacent public eye.

Sequels come in so many forms nowadays I thought I should try to distinguish this one: there are prequels: what transpired before. There are appropriations: you transpose the story and character to another country or era. There are analogies or free adaptations, where the central outline of a plot and the central archetypal character patterns are recognizable, plus a few idiosyncratic scenes or complications. Modern dress: Bridget Jones’s Diary out of Pride and Prejudice through the film adaptatio of 1995 by Andrew Davies. There are commentaries as films: you produce the story with changes which critique it. The post-modern, often post-colonialist new perspective: you retell Defoe’s story of Robinson Crusoe from Friday’s point of view (Foe); you retell RLS’s Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde from the maid living in the house, and you have Valerie Martin and Stephen Frears’ Mary Reilly, a historical novel in its own right, not belonging just to the RLS franchise (as Jo Baker’s Longbourn does not move outside Austenland). Gone with the Wind from a girl household slave like Prissy. Those who know GWTW well or the movie may remember Prissy’s famous outcry when asked to help Melanie, a secondary heroine, give birth: “Ah, don’t know nuthin’ bout birthin’ Miss Scarlet.” A black person in that audience would not have jeered at her for that utterance. The Wind Done Gone retells GWTW from the perspective of a black female household slave. Or you retell the familiar Tudor matter from the point of view of a man hitherto made into a villain, Thomas Cromwell, only you make him a hero; voila, Hilary Mantel and Peter Staughan’s Wolf Hall.

My plan was to say that Framley Parsonage corresponded to a primary type: the continuation (the closest I can think of in recent Jane Austen sequels is P.D. James’s Death comes to Pemberley, Darcy and Elizabeth 7 years on). A continuation is a novel which continues the story of a group of characters in a book or books after that book or those books have ended. There has thus far been one for Trollope: John Wirenius’s Phineas at Bay: it has centrally recurring characters who live in a single connected imaginary space. It is in Framley Parsonage that Trollope begins to connect up all the places he had mentioned in the first three novels, The Warden, Barchester Towers and Dr Thorne, and Wirenius continues the Barsetshire-Palliser stories after The Duke’s Children closes, through the upper class conservative perspective of Simon Raven, which has become identified as Trollope country. It is just one territory of it I’d say.

The problem I discover is Framley Parsonage doesn’t really. It does not continue the stories of the first or second book or even the third: Dr Thorne. We meet only some of the characters we have met in the first three novels but it’s not their story; they swirl around the main story. The main story gives us wholly new characters and suddenly fills out a hitherto blank space (had we realized there is a map) in Barsetshire: Framley Court and Parsonage and their inhabitants. A few character recur: most important, the ironic festival, frolic charactrer, Miss Dunstable; and Dr Thorne, Archbishop and Mrs Grantly, not to omit Griselda (now the name is become ironic), and the biological son of the Duke of Omnium (returned), now named Lord Dumbello, by the Marquise of Hartletop; Mr Harding appears in order to expose the moral horror Griselda represents. The Rev Josiah Crawley was mentioned as Mr Arabin’s friend of deep integrity, high intelligence, sincere religious belief, to whose poorly paid curacy in Cornwall Mr Arabin would go when he needed uplife. But now he comes on stage and is central to the serious themes of the book:

fram1
John Everett Millais, The Crawley Family (from the original illustrations)

The best we can do is call it a traditional sequel because the basic point of view remains the same and the story of some of them carry on and they are in the same imaginary space.

We fall back on how we define a series, or roman fleuve: it has centrally recurring characters who live in a single connected imaginary space. It is in Framley Parsonage that Trollope begins to connect up all the places he had mentioned in the first three novels, The Warden, Barchester Towers and Dr Thorne. So it’s a sequel because it clinches the series using the map, some recurring characters, and themes — the egregious injustice in the way clergyman were chosen and paid.

By contrast, the once called Parliamentary (as the Parliament is central to them all) and now Palliser books (since the books were adapted using Simon Raven’s scripts 1974-75), a second set of six novels which came out of the Barsetshire map and some of its key characters (Duke of Omnium) was meant to be a series and does have a central couple whose story is told over 6 books. Each Palliser book has separate characters and stories who are central to that book too, and most of the time like a soap opera they drift off; in the imaginary of the soap opera world, you can call them back, but they more of less vanished, merely heard about occasionally,and the on-going recurring Palliser group ages and matures, and the imaginary space, now Barsetshire on the trainline into London and its 12 novel chronology is more less consistent. So too Downton Abbey (I was struck how in Season 5 we are told Gwen a maid we met in Season 1 and left the abbey to be a secretary has now married). The later series takes us into our contemporary world.

Vasilyev_illumination
Feodor Vasilyev (1850-73), St Petersburgh Illuminated (1869) — the modern city

This blog serves to point up how the Barsetshire series was not planned as a series. Framley Parsonage (the fourth, which resembles the fourth in other recognizable roman fleuves or sagas, like Warleggan in the Poldark series) lovingly fills in and tries to make consistent and meaningful the map of Barsetshire for the first time. It is about about the ubiquity of sequels or post-texts in our era. Comments and thoughts on post-texts in our time invited – re-booting is nowadays a popular term for re-done film adaptations.

Ellen

I have a right to chose my own life — Verity (2015)

FinalStill
Final still, a far shot (2015 Poldark, written & created by Debbie Horsfield

Supplyingfood

Inneed
A few stills before: Demelza (Eleanor Tomlinson) come with Jud, food & other supplies, watching Ross (Aiden Turner) who sits absorbed in thoughts about his mine

Dear friends and readers,

While Episode 1 of Horsfield’s 2015 mini-series (it’s important to remember how central the writer has now become to BBC film adaptations) seemed closely similar to Episode 1 in 1975 (Jack Pullman, writer, and Christopher Barry, director of the first four; with 3 others writers & different directors for the next 12, and a kind of organizing central conception and linchpin hold from the single producer for them all, Morris Barry), as I wrote and Anibundel noticed, Demelza’s entry into Ross’s household begun in the 2nd quarter of the 1975 second episode and clinched in the end of the 3rd (her father’s greedy intervention) was brought all into one into the 2015 first episode. What that meant is much in the original episode 1 (at least 4 scenes of mining and banking), had to give way and everything presented made briefer, shallower.

Reading over the blogs in reaction to the 2015 Episode 1 this week, I see that one unfortunate result has been most watchers have misunderstood the novel (Ross Poldark), which is not a triangular love story of a brooding angry man. Graham’s Ross Poldark is the story of a revenant, a man believed dead, who comes home to realize that no one minded him dying (except maybe Elizabeth Chynoweth and his now dead father, Joshua), that he has been replaced, his house gone to wreck, and who gradually gains the strength and determination to build a new life for himself as a mine owner; the last part of the book is a love story (a beautiful idyll), but Demelza’s story is primarily one of a lower class girl growing up, and painfully learning to integrate herself into the upper class Cornish world, which is not a lush rich one, but people on the margins, many genteel impoverished (Nampara is a farmhouse, the Chynoweths are broke, the Charles Poldark Trenwith home on the edge of bankruptcy). As I wrote the Elizabeth Chynoweth matter in both the 1975 and 2015 first episode was heavily taken from Warleggan (the fourth Poldark books).

Thus the slow-moving Episode 1 and 2 of the 1975 mini-series kept much more of the original emphasis; it also kept Graham’s political perspective, a pro-American revolution outlook, for a social contract among people (reflecting the Post World War Two atmosphere of the book), not just or even sheer anti-capitalist; and if my impressionistic survey of what’s being written on the Net and what I’ve read about the sales of the books from the 1970s to 1990s is accurate, while in 1975 and a decade afterward many readers turned to the books, and read them, the new mini-series may be increasing sales of the Poldark books, but few appear to be reading or re-engaging with them, understanding loving Graham’s Ross Poldark, just as much or more than the films.

A second reason for this disconnect is the new way of making films. Forty years have passed; in the 1970s through early 1990s, TV films were conceived as stage plays, whether filmed on an indoor set or outdoors; actors learned longish interactive talk and dominated much longer scenes (it could be as long as 8-11 minutes) on a screen; individual complex character conception out of virtuoso acting was prized. It’s not true that the 1975 Poldarks resembled most others by having characters standing around repressed. What made it so popular was it had characters who openly expressed their emotions, acted them out physically; and that (unusual until the mid-1980s), much was filmed on location in Cornwall, with different locations central to the action (as in a later episode when Dwight Enys sets a fire on the top of a mountain to warn the smugglers below the prevention men are coming to capture them). The music was highly original, haunting. In fact much less of this sort of thing is being done in the new Poldark: the new Poldark is more set-oriented (included the set for the mine), the music very average (not Cornish), the same landscape used stills over and over as sheer backdrop.

What is generically new and apparently compelling to an audience brought up on post-2000 movie-house films is the continual use of embedded montage and a very different mood. The technique of the 2015 film is ceaseless, sometimes abrupt montage, quick brief shots of epitomizing scenes, a continual wipe out as the camera moves from one group of people to another. Inside a series of these quick pictures with few words, reliance on gesture and sheer picture is heavy, are embedded references to different on-going stories. The mood of the new series is brooding melodrama, high and intense romance (in picturesque settings for Trenwith and Heidi Reed as Elizabeth), grating, edgy, a sense of emotions of those on the screen at any second about to explode (with Eleanor Tomlinson providing the languid resentful moments as an excluded and overtly oppressed target for others to hurt or order about). There is no comedy — there was much in the 1975 film.

The embedded montage in this film at any rate keeps many of the less central characters at a distance from us; it’s a tribute to the effective intelligent acting of Kyle Coller as Francis Poldark, Crystal Leaity as Margaret (presented as a prostitute), and Pip Torrens as Cary Warleggan (George Warleggan’s father, a man of at least minimal integrity as a capitalist has been cut) that we really get a sense of their characters — at the same time as Horsfield has reconceived these three (as well as Elizabeth). Horsfield is determined to add George Warleggan in early (as they did in 1975, with the commanding feel of Ralph Bates’s presence simply there now and again), but while Jack Farthing gets some individual moments (as bully, as treacherous, a kind of Iago to Francis’s Othello, but also favorably as this man trying to negotiate with Ross Poldark to bring him to compromise with the corrupt world), often he appears for a split second, says a line and then we move on.

This is a choice it must be remembered; it is seen most unqualified in the modern genres of western, action-adventure, crime-thriller and semi-fantasy films. In a historical film (which Horsfield’s mini-series aspires to be) you are allowed to slow down, offer scenic moments of the past (and Horsfield does this in the sets of the village and fair), and yes return to coherent precise talk. The choice here seems to have be taken as an effort to secure a larger audience. I have seen films where embedded montage is overcome enough that we have rounded complex characterizations in the minor characters (e.g., the recent Bleak House and Little Dorrit, Andrew Davies products). The film-makers may also have felt the staged playlets are seen as elitist and might therefore drive away audiences. They have ignored the reality that Downton Abbey uses this older technique and no one has complained; the more than 16 complex characters have been bonded with.

**************************

VeitysubalternElizabethnothingtodo
Verity subaltern, Elizabeth mismatched (by mother it seems in this series) with nothing to do

What interests me personally though and what this blog will be about is how in Episode 2 of the 2015 Poldark series, Debbie Horsfield has reconceived the Graham story’s and the story of the 1975 film. (I know she denies knowing the 1975 but it’s transparently obvious she watched it carefully, as who would not, if only because it is well thought of, and sometimes develops and changes things from the 1975 not in the book at all.) Episode 2 turns the Poldark matter (let’s call it) into a mining story: the second episode begins and ends with the mines; its high moments are Ross’s hard work and gradual success at securing a combination of men to find and work copper in Wheal Leisure after the Warleggans have closed Wheal Reith, and it’s seen that Charles and Francis’s Wheal Gambler is failing, even though paying lower and lower wages.

The secondary story of Episode 2 is feminist as Horsfield understand feminism: the mistreatment of Verity (everyone is much harsher to her than the book or in 1975): Ruby Bentall is used as a servant, this Charles (Warren Clark) does not want her to marry (Graham’s Charles and Frank Middlemass as Charles did), she is presented as supposed to be subservient to Elizabeth (who protests and does not want to be idle and looks frustrated and bored). All of Verity’s initial story is told in Episode 2: meeting with Blamey, falling in love, courting, and the ugly thwarting by Francis and Charles (in the 1975 film it was, like Demelza’s, done leisurely over 3 episodes). This Cinderella kind of perspective is repeated in how we see Demelza literally kept in the dirt, at the hearth cleaning ashes, protected and looked after more by Ross than anyone else has: in the small time he’s got he noticed Jud and Prudie harass her, insult and make her life harder, and encourages her to negotiate for cheap prices for fish, and buys her a clock. Elizabeth is presented as bullied by her mother into the marriage with Francis, and afterward having nothing to do. This is Horsfield’s career-oriented idea of feminism; I’m surprised it hasn’t been noticed.

What has been noticed and constitutes (for me) the worst or flawed moments of this episode are the imitations of and reactions against other popular films: in order to get over a charged insulting moment, Ross is seen going swimming, naked from shoulder to waist, with Demelza in the grass, voyeur-like watching him in sensual enjoyment. This is taken from the famous “wet-shirt” scene of Colin Firth in the 1995 Pride and Prejudice (scripted by Andrew Davies). Jud (Phil Davis) and Prudie (Beatie Edney) are made into nasty people, avoiding hard work wherever possible, having sex in the corners; this belies the pro-the people thrust of Ross’s actions, and seems to be a reaction against all the happy free servants we are continually confronted with in two-level humanity shows like Downton Abbey. The 1975 mini-series also showed the characters as existing on two separate levels (with Elizabeth and Francis’s wedding an elegant cold affair and Jinny and Jim Carter’s a warm free-for-all country dance and drinking), but we did get a sense of the lower class male and busineessmen characters’ individual personalities. In Episode 2 Zacky Martin (Tristain Sturrock) and Mark Daniel (Matthew Wilson) and Henshawe (John Hollingworth) appear and at least Jim Carter and Henshawe and the “bad guy” Dr Choake (a weakness there, played ably though by Robert Dawes) but there is no sense of them or the other male miners or the businessmen as real individuals.

What follows is a description of Episode 2 in 1975 and 2015. This time I won’t try to compare as the matter of the two is so different. My interest is to show how differently the movies are made in this one episode (I won’t do it again, this will be the one study) to suggest why they have such a different effect.

**************************

Demelzaclimbingup
Demelza climbs up, Ross watching her (Angharad Rees and Ellis)

enjoying
Francis (Clive Francis) as aristocratic young man, center of friends & cronies, women, enjoying himself

withVerity
Verity’s (Norma Streader) successful appeal to Ross (2975, scripted Jack Pullman, directed Christopher Barry)

Episode 2, 1975:

This Poldark story is treated archetypally, from the standpoint of sympathy with the lower classes of Cornwall and the fringe people gentry who are being exploited and starved by monopolizers and outsiders (the Warleggans stand for these), with a strongly active story-line of social scenes (gambling, dancing). The point is to build a whole varied world. The use of landscape is entrancing. The story thread now is how Ross (Robin Ellis) is (against his own will in part and certainly not done with open arms or glee but rather stern reactions) gradually brought into social interaction with people, gradually decides to start up his life as a man in the community, of some standing as well as family. I have never been able find a release transcript dialogue on line or a shooting script (these come as xeroxed copies held together with clips) for any of the 50 minute parts, so I can’t quote some of the speeches as it’s long and tedious work to take them down in stenography. To anyone coming here who knows where I could buy one, please let me know.

poldarkpt2episode1rosswithmargaret

The arching pattern has the story open with Ross with a prostitute (with a heart of gold, alas), drunk, gambling: he’s cheered by the woman and his activities but also desperate. When he sees Francis (Clive Francis as our good-natured well-meaning libertine, his own worst enemy but charmingly witty) comes in with a bunch of cronies, Ross leaves upon seeing Francis; Francis regrets that Ross has seen him, lest his activities get back to Elizabeth (Jill Townsend). To the watcher in the 1970s there was something congenial and manly in Francis’s artistocratic bearing; he is enjoying himself even if not virtuously, not despicably. Ross is doing the same, Francis by gambling, Ross by his relationship with Margaret and gambling.

Establishment shot of Nampara, and we are inside and there is Verity (Norma Streader) coming over finding Ross in a stupor and scolding him into at least getting up and doing something. She wants him to take her to a part, a ball, she has no partner. She too lives a desolate life she says — lonely, with no love of her own, no world, no activities outside caring for Trenwith and Francis’s family.

Ross’s determination to begin to make something of himself begin with his knowing he needs food and money, so the first thing is to farm his land. His visits to the Carters and Martins show him that Jim Carter, a young man he likes, is ill, needs work, and he hires him (three scenes). This thread will lead to Ross’s rage over how the poaching laws (a property war) are used with Jim as scapegoat to repress and kowtow and simply maliciously hurt lower class people. Carter is weak but well-meaning, an ailing person who cannot work in the mines (very bad for anyone) and comes for a job and proves his worth as a human being. We met Jinny in a juxtaposed scene, the Martins too. The wife is not individualized but everyone else is and made appealing. The sets are based on 19th century paintings from Cornwall: this is an impoverished world which maintains an important veneer of civility for themselves.

Then hopeful Ross is off to the fair to buy livestock and start farming. It’s a wonderfully recreated fair which in the book is also fully achieved, including in the film a St George and the Dragon play. The high point of the part and certainly I felt all the frisson was his meeting with Demelza (Angharad Rees) as a thieving young urchin and being led to bring her home. This is not quite as in the book for in the book he takes her out of two fighting fierce dogs (she’s protecting hers) and a resulting mob scene (people who object to her saving her dog). Here he saves her from a fierce beating. But the effect is the same. He is relentless with her too: scolds, berates, threatens. We do see she is falling in love with him because he is being kind and decent.

poldarkpt2episode5jimjinnycarter
Jim and Jinny Carter at their wedding

VerityBlameyDancing
Verity and Blamey dancing, falling in love

The film does fall into somehing the book does not: upstairs downstairs. We have the Carter wedding with Ross as viewer and this is (quietly) juxtaposed to Ross at the ball dancing so elegantly. We see the two subgroups interact in parallel ways but apart. There is an acceptance of this by showing it this way. The book does have these levels of people but does not make this kind of parallel contrast which by its presentation justifies the hierarchical okay point of view. it is here we see Verity and Blamey begin to fall in love in stills of them quietly dancing; Charles is agreeable to the idea if Blamey has money and status and asks Ross to help him find out. He will see what he can discover.

Then the coming of the Carnes; it’s treated half-comically. The father is corrupt and wants to be paid, at the same time to appear this male bully. Ross refuses to play this game, and a fight ensues over male pride. Jim comes in and genuinely participates in fending off the Carnes with Jud in the comedy of the piece: they help Ross throw out Demelza’s corrupt father and brothers.

Poldark75Pt1Ep2QuarrelScene2
The young Demelza runs in to protest against her two guineas a year being given to her father: women have no rights, she declares

Ross is called to Trenwith by Elizabeth and rushes over: this is a rare moment in this hour where we see Ross’s love for Elizabeth come out. She tells the story of Blamey as a wife-murderer and alcoholic and says Verity refuses to give him up. She does not identify with anyone outside herself once again. Ross at first sees the wisdom of separating this couple, and the scene between them shows his concern for Elizabeth (he says her name ever so softly), but in a closing touching scene just outside Trenwith he is brought to agree to help her at least get to know the man by allowing meetings in his house. here it is made clear the man killed his wife, had a violent abusive alcoholic past. Graham and the film-makers of the 1975 film do not treat this as necessarily unacceptable — there is arguably some implicit and overt misogyny and disregard of women’s primal needs and problems in the 1945 books and 1970s film, but the 2015 film’s solution is to blame the woman: Bentall as Verity claims the wife was violent first, Blamey killed her wholly by accident. This is not much better.

To conclude in 1975 the central event is the coming of Demelza but she is seen against a backdrop of creating the world of Cornwall and the lives of other characters; nothing presented overtly didactically at all but subtly — more subtly than I’ve time or space to show. The use of the house (Poldark’s Cornwall names) it in which Francis, Elizabeth, the father, Verity live is very good. It fells such a natural place and yet has this lovely taste and landscape. So too is the farmhouse believable, feels real. Photographed naturally.

**************************

StandingWatching
Verity standing watching the duel between Francis and Captain Blamey, whose results will dictate, probably ruin her future

Raremomentoflaugher
At the assembly ball, a rare moment of laughter for Elizabeth while dancing & talking with Ross

themeetingbegins
Ross’s crucial moment: the businessmen gather as he spreads out his papers to persuade them to re-open a mine to search for copper

Episode 2, 2015: this is how embedded montage works in this film, and how the themes of mining, business, and the oppression of women emerge.

Phase 1: The opening set of stills, rocks, crashing waters, the silhouette; then the mine set: bell, wood, lantern, leaves, Ross glimpsed working hard in the mine.

Cut to Ross at desk, thinking, working at papers, looking at crystal he has drawn from the morning work. Overvoice of Phil Davis as Jud chanting: mines, in the book, a copper vein the bread of life; what you eat, sleep breathe; cut to shot of closing notice of Wheal Reith; Jud’s voice continues: “she’s your salvation and your downfall” and soloiloquy turns ominous, dark. Cut to establishment shot of great house, and then inside an aristocratic man tying his bow, the other side, a footman knocking “my lord?” Phil’s voice continues, “making reckless, making blod.” Cut to redcoats and officers stopping men at a mine from working. Jim Carter to the fore: “’tisn’t right ’tis all we have,” men in back. Full medium shot of Jud drinking, Ross working at table, bitter look in both faces. We hear footman again: “My lord Basset, there are bailiffs” at Wheal Reith, as cut to inside and aristocractic man puts wig on head in front of mirror. Jud: “A fool’s game will end in tears” at table. Cut to Jim standing forward to fight, knocked down. Jud’s voice: “your father died before his time, now Ross answers “I admire your optimism.” Jud to Ross: “Your father died in his bed. And it won’t be the last man that mining did in, and if he were here today … he’d tell you not to make the same mista”ke
Shot heard from aristocratic house we saw during montage. Ross speaks to Jud’s soliloquy: “I wonder ..”

Cut to sea, and we hear and see surging waters. Establishment shot of farmhouse, Nampara. Demelza’s voice heard, angry: “Judas it’s cold, brr it’s freezing,” she is dousing her head with cold water from pump. Ross seen at window. She calls herself “a buttock of beef,” he is amused, she fierce. Jim comes up as Ross looks out window. Cock crows; Jim says “mine closed .. Basset dead.”

Cut to Warleggans, very handsome inner study with the young George worried, fretting, “We called in his loans,” and now we see his uncle at his desk, “no,” says Carey, “we declined to extend it.” George: “Does it not reflect poorly that it falls on deaf ears?” Carey snarls: “Are we in the business of sentiment or profit?
[Before we can feel for George], Margaret at door comes in to say “I be going now Mr George?” George cold, “Have you been dismissed? He is all arrogance, tells her she is to address him as sir,” and turns to say to Carey: “These ancient families they lack backbone.”

Cut to yard: Jim and Ross sitting together on a log : Jim: “Why would they call it? Ross”Believe me; it’s the banks.” Jim: “Grambler is the only mine.” Ross: “My uncle won’t take you in?” Jim: “there’s my breathing.” Ross: ” You’d welcome a few months above grass,” hands Jm the cup. Jim: “I need to work or my mothers and sisters starve.” Cut to Prudie scolding inside to Demelza, nasty, “So now we be home to all the waifs and wastrels of the county,” Ross coming in, hears, turns away, Prudie continues her taunts about begging bowls, with Demelza at threshold Prudie bangs into her, thus connecting her to Jim. Demelza looks awry, skeptical, hard.

Cut to books on library shelf, beautiful piano, beautiful things in room, Ross sits down and picks up 300 pounds from Charles to be gotten from Warleggan’s bank. Flashback: he remembers Elizabeth on the cilff in the sun before he left for America, and then fingers the ring she gave him. Cut to him determinedly charging across landscape; arrives at Trenwith, Elizabeth at window, seemingly satisfied. Downstairs Charles, Verity ever serving, Agatha, he walks in. Verity: “Ross!”; Agatha says “You still here?” Ross to uncle “I’m minded to give back money, puts down on table. Now Charles sneers, “Just like your father,” snaps fingers at Verity (she is treated like Margaret by George). Ross: “Heard about Wheal Reith, to which Charles “and Bassett” –-. Ross first of interventions for Verity: turns to her: “you must visit me soon Verity,” selfish greedy Charles retorts, “And neglect her duties here? She’s too busy to be gadding about,” with a further sneering reference to “Cousin Francis as not much good.” Ross walks out, and Elizabeth watching from window. She looks as a woman in love, she sits down to mirror, Francis comes in (minor key music), he wants to go to bed with her clearly, camera on her her hand on table as he says “Shall I join you in bed, m’dear”, he puts his hand around her reluctant one.

Cut to Demelza in Nampara farm yard washing in tub, Jim passing by with farming equipment; cock crows and nasty mischievous Jud and Prudie stick more sheets and shirts on her to clean. Now the working men seen chasing after Ross on horseback on way to mine, teasing him that he’ll be arrested for inciting a riot soon, Martin thanks him for hiring Jim, and another man says “Happen you could do the same thing for we?” He’s told that Charles Poldark has hired men for starvation wages, Ross’s bitter voice, now soft voice, “I can promise nothing.” Ominous music and mine seen in silhouette. Inside of mine photographed with ross Letting himself down.

Phase 2: Cut to outside mine, Francis with high hat rides up to mine, Ross coming out, Francis; “Are you staying. Ross: “do you resent this.” Now Francis appeals to him again (as he did in Episode 1) “We used to be friends … you aren’t thinking of reopening?” Ross: “I’ll think of anything hat might help those devils left off of Wheal Reith. Francis says he can’t take “responsibility” because “father doesn’t trust me.” Back shot of two against mine and Ross’s voice heard: “Perhaps we should share burden, Open wheal leisure together …”

vlcsnap-2015-06-21-21h35m50s133

Cut to Elizabeth gathering eggs on Trenwith grounds, Verity to her, “what are you doing? A lady should not be doing this,” but Elizabeth wants to, Verity that “the lady of the house, goes to assemblies,” so Elizabeth shows her Elizabeth’s invitation to a ball and asks Verity, “May you not go?” Verity tells her that her days “activities are as a kind of superior servant, her life is not Elizabeth’s life” Note: Heidi Reed’s hair-do left over from Gainsborough’s films, high curls and one on shoulder, Verity’s a group of knotted buns, not 18th century, perhaps 1950s.

Cock crows and Ross in town – very much a rural scene in the streets. Effective set. Montage cut to Ross in banker’s office, talking to Pascoe who is saying “Have you taken leave of your senses. Ross: “What do I need?”
Answer includes “capital, knowhow, allies, men of means, money men.” Ross’s reply includes “marginal, smattering, cousin will lend his name.” Pascoe: “You need investment and have reputation somewhat tarnished. I am speaking as banker and friend.” Cut to tavern, POV Ross, Margaret seen from side – she is clearly a prostitute ever out for a lay. Western like minor musical tune, soft pedals from piano. Margaret approaches him, and he says he “has neither money nor inclination,” advising her to seek “another profession;” cut to her telling his fortune (he agreed to that at least) and brings out qualities about him, prophecies: “you have made the mistake of falling in love … came back … and you still care for her; she is kind, perhaps she loves you still.” He looks at her with a kindly smile on his face. Cut to vision of Elziabeth on chair in luscious garden looking melancholy – with appropriate uneasy music.

Ross riding back across landscape (a repeated motif) and Verity catches up on her horse; he is glad to see her. “You escaped then?” They come to farmhouse and Verity says: “I see you’ve not been idle” Jim and Jud pass them as they work. Ross calls out “Demelza” as she is at hanging out clothes near pump, introduces “Tthis is my cousin, Verity: she courtesies very awkwardly. As two ride off, Verity: “Has she settled?” Ross: “still somewhat feral. Verity asks if if his wound still pains him, she comes down from horse, a more intimate tone than we’ve heard “I wonder if I might ask you the greatest of favors.” Cut to invitation, we are to gather she wants him to take her. Cut to him staring out from desk, glimpses in nearby room Demelza sweeping. Lone unconsidered figure she is feeling this. Cut to brief shot of Elizabeth in fancy outfit in Trenwith, with Francis coming in front of her and asking, “My dear, will you not reconsider, you know how I love to show off my wife to the world.” She looks irritated. Cut to Demelza sweeping, looking up warily; Prudie comes over as Ross walks by. “Where’s he going?” Demelza: “To a dance, he don’t look too glad about it.” Puzzled. Prudie: “gentlefolks is strange.”

Phase 3: the assembly romance juxtaposed to Demelza at Nampara: shot from above looking down at high artifice in room, elegant classical music, camera from above, looking down at ball room candles people dancing, elegance, luxury. Verity walking down stairs on Ross’s, thanking him for getting permission from father. Ross: “I’m entirely at your service,” Verity: “Don’t be … ”

Downstairs, close-ups: luxury tables, piles of food, men gambling, Choake and the businessmen at a table: Choake: “Those ruffians settled themselves? Cary sneers about lack of jobs, Choake: “They have no business to have an opinion at all.” Francis: “Some would say that is outdated.” George: “In America for instance all men created equal. Choake “Preposterous. George (ironic for us to see him say this): “Distinctions of rank must be preserved,” Francis (conscious irony of his own) “Especially when they are so dearly bought. Cut to Demelza scrubbing floor; Prudie and Jud gloating over her (Cinderella scene) and enjoying fire and liquor.

Cut to dance floor: Georgeby steps: “Not dancing, Ross, will none of the ladies have you? mocking gently that he has a whiff of the workers. Ross asks if he needs perfume. George self-deprecating: “Yes how else will a family of blacksmiths … “, trying to be genial, with rapid line of “One of these days you may need to come knocking. Ross: “I would be desperate.” George walks off “I look forward to the prospect.” Turning round POV Ross sees Elizabeth apparently resigned (but has sad look on face however transient) on Francis’s arm, holding her face up, holding her own as best she can … Ross sees Blamey there, saying “you know that lady” to someone, Ross watches Verity and Blamey meet, Verity knows him, addresses him, but his attention diverted by Miss Teague trying to make conversation (his words rebarbative), then without him camera switches to an awkward Verity, trying to make conversation, “Ah, a sea captain,” she is tryingso hard. Juxtaposed to hypocrisies of Miss Teague to whom Ross says: “I fear I possess few of the refinements of polite society”. Verity lacks them too; implication, they are socially dysfunctional if real relationships is what you are after. Cut to Demelza to underline point: We see non-polite society; she is filthy sweaty, with candle lured into library, sits by harpsichord (minor chord), camera catches Purdie and Jud drunkenly singing, going up to their bed. She gazes at desk, maps, papers, crystal …

Ross coming down hall, Mr Treneglos accosts him; friendly men with Henshawe who worked as mine captain for his father, all talking of mines now. Henshawe eager: “Are you thinking of opening, working it.” Pascoe heard saying he’ll see what can be done … requires discretion. POV moves to George near by, spying. Ross”I fully comprehend you sir.”

Verity and Blamey falling in love over his drawing his ship on a pad, He: “When can I see you again? She: “Oh captain Blamey that I couldn’t say. Cut to cruel scene of Jud coming upon Demelza in library, threatening her, rough, telling her “go home you are getting ideas about your station,” she is angry, wretched. Cut to Blamey: “Forgive me, I do not wish to appear forward, but I would dearly like us to be better acquainted,” Verity quietly: “Me too.” Miss Teague back to trying again, Ross she and her mother by heading for Elizabeth who is talking with Francis, who genially retreats for the one dance.

High symbolic romance: Magic music hands touch – the director imitating Wright in 2005 Pride and Prejudice and recent Anna Karenina with single couple mesmerized, glimpsed and glanced by others again and again. (Nothing in book justifies this, in 1975 Ross upon seeing Elizabeth in a pattern dance, cannot bear assembly anymore, bids adieu to Verity and leaves.) George now, Iago-like planting seed in Francis’s mind; “Your cousin most attentive … to your wife …” At first Francis doesn’t take this in: “I don’t think he cares for dancing, he only came to please Verity.” George alert: “Who is that man” pointing to Blamey. Francis: “A captain but father couldn’t spare her and Elizabeth would miss her, George insinuatingly replies: “doubtless our wife would find ways of distracting herself.” So Francis begins to watch intensities between Ross and Elizabeth – we see trouble in his eyes. Mrs Teague now seeing Elizabeth and Ross, Verity notices, Francis upset, and Verity hearing high nervous laughter from Elizabeth, ignored Blamey’s stuttering asking if he can ask her father, comes to rescue by hurrying to Ross and stopping dance moment: “Ross may I introduce Captain Blamey.” Verity tells Ross, “There is nothing there for you,” and she and she look back at Elizabeth with Francis, and Verity asks: “You’ll take supper, thank you I’ve no appetite.” George seen nastily shadowing Francis,making ugly gossip about “Ross in love, see the spectacle – Ruth Teague is unlikely to remind one of previous attachment.” Ross goes out into night, turns up in tavern and then Margaret next to him: “May I be of service m’lod,” Ross: “One service is all I required,” he ushers her upstairs. Cut to Demelza with dog in bed, Elizabeth upstairs watching unhappy drinking Francis below.

Bright day over roofs – bell of morning – Margaret and Ross wake, he is kindly disposed, she tells him again “you’ve a rare hand it knows what it wants but not always how to get it.” The male upper class arrogance Horsfield concerned to show in Ross’s speech: “I was not in a talkative mood last night.” Demelza seen walking by beach – now he is seen stripping self and washing – presumably doing water therapy but the voyeurism and reference to Davies’s P&P (Colin Firth) unfortunate, and absurd: Tomlinson even breathes heavily …. and glinting sun –

Phase 4: The success of both Ross and Demelza in town.

ArrivinginFalmouth
Arriving he calls out to Demelza

vlcsnap-2015-06-21-22h57m19s127
She is glad to be respected, given a trusted serious task – buy food for household

Ross seen at work at his desk again, Demelza brings in food, the angry Charles comes in, opening a mine, the cursed of the Poldarks” but he wants Francis to be part of it — “he must learn to stand on his feet, but as is clear by Charles’s choosing this for Francis, he is not learning; Ross says teach him discretion “from his good friend George.”

Jim ready with horse, Demelza with basket, Ross wants to take her to shop – it is a kindness to get her away from Jud and Prudie seen in distance sitting – have they been making you a beast of burden, you look weary – she bursts out I know my place, He “your place is where I say it is, fetch your cloak, Sir? Never had no cloak
The two on horse, her hands held in this abject way – lively scene of town by the sea – everyone doing different economic things, visual expansive realism as they on horse move by – important day for us both let’s see who can strike the better bargain .. as she gets off. He spots Verity speeding along and she ducks
Demelza coming down stairs to fish monger. Elizagbeth out of shop with cloth – he is so eager to help her ,allow me (she didn’t need it and Demelza did) George glimpses them walking together .. she asks if he enjoyed –- she pretends to say Miss Teague was pleasing him and perhaps he should look here, he asks would that please you, so she says she has to go, Verity looking for her. Shots of Demelza bargaining; glimpses of Verity and Blamey.

Ross goes into tavern, meaning to bring Francis along, but it’s too late, as George coming away from Francis saying: “I’ll leave you.” Francis tears in his voice refuses: I need something I can depend on. As Ross walks away we see George standing there is swaggering. Unfortunate degradation of Francis: in the book and 1975 he refuses because he doesn’t like risk, is in too much debt, especially to warleggan; here he is insecure jealous male (lacks all dignity).

Key scene of episode: the business men gather, Henshaw sitting down, Ross spreading out papers, maps – he has worked so hard for this. Henshaw are we expecting your cousin, Francis has changed his mind a pit yit would lend a certain gravity – Choake deeply hostile at idea of spending gold for copper.

Cut to George seducing Francis in tavern: “some see arrogance, others observe a sense of entitlement; Francis: “To o what?” Whatever takes his fancy – then tries to pump Francis for info on “latest venture”. Cut to Ross talking it up; back and forth between two scenes; Francis does refuse to talk; Trenegloss question is, “What will it cost us? Choake irritated bankers not to be Warleggans. Back to George: “Warleggans will lend but persaps Rossdoes’t value friendship or family. Ross to Choake: “Warleggan will lend only in prosperity once it starts to struggle they take money out,” and Renfew and Henshaw add: “This costs miners dear (interrupton of George poring down seduction) – costs mine owners dearer. Cut to Francis, an idiot listening to George – he’ll advance anything.

Juxtaposed: Ross rewards considerable for these risks … he’d sooner gamble at mine than cards 50 guineas a piece for the first three months, Henshawe adds his and then the others fall in, Ross looks happy as others give in different ways, toast to Wheel leisure. Ross looks out window and sees George with arms around Francis
He is now outside and Demelza coming up with fish in basket; men see her, what am I a circus attraction, poorly dressed. He buys her a clock — in 1975 it was a new dress.

The last phase: tragedy of Verity and Blamey cut off from one another and ending with Ross finding solace and meaning in starting up mining, Demelza at his side.

Establishment shot of Trenwith then Elizabeth overhearing angry Charles and Francis discussing Verithy’s shamelessness wth blamey; Charles angry you should have dnoe something before our family name dragged through mud. Demelza and Ross home on horse. Cut to Demelza at kitchen chopping; calls Jud and Prudie, goes to door it’s Elizabeth, she is squashed and Elizabeth all elegance. Ross comes out so pleased and soft toned; Jud comes in as they are nearly talking of love despite Francis, she wants him to speak with francis and father, saddle his horse; rides there and Elizabeth there – hears with startle about Verity – now we now father selfishly against it anyway – -contrast to Charles 1975 – Clarissa solution she does not leave house until she swears never to see him again He is all agreement inside but looks loath. He is now outside – verity cones up to him, produces softened version in which she attacks him first – ross agrees t ohelp her. Blamey in house: she’s my angel of redemption – later he says Demelza his redemption

Comic heavy handed interlude with Mrs and ruth Teague – one has only to taste her syllabubs to know their succulence …is Miss Verit still meeting that blagard

As Blamey and Verity talk of their families, Ross asks Demelza if she hears word of her family she has not
Ross ride across stormy countryside on his way to Wheal leisure: Francis and uncle infuriated and scene over Blamey ensues. Ross now moving down swiftly: He had come home so happy about investment meeting, thinking about Francis may yet join him – they are all stiff and hostile – George must not be told he will betray, Francis accuses him of betraying them over Verity, who is given the utterance: “I have a right to chose my own life.” Francis’s response to this: “Perhaps a thrashing” to Blamey. Not in my house, says Ross – Blamey rightly calls Francis a puppy and he is incensed now father wants him to stop – Francis “anyone may abuse our trust – incensed over jealousy of Ross, he strikes Verity down more than once, wants Jud to act as referee – pathetic scene of Verity and Blamey outside. Shots Francis falls.

Prudie feared of blood and Demelza helps Ross stop the blood. Back and forth, Elizabeth comes in and is hysterical blaming Ross. Dmelza “Your cousin do owe you his life, then to Ross: “Where’d you learn to do such things,” Ross: “on the battle fields of Virginia. Stupidity of Charles, says to Ross: “You are a disgrace to name ofpoldark and offers no thanks. Elizabeth leaving “I do not blame you. I wouldn’t for the world wish him hurt. I now more than ever I need him by my side because I am with child.” This is the signal of the end of his hopes we are to take it; in 1975 it was Ross telling Elizabeth Demelza pregnant and he would marry her; no such scene in Ross Poldark.

Cut to Nampara: Demelza comes in to front roomand he puts hand on forehead, reaches for her hand, “Do I have half wit branded across my forehead. She: “No.” He: “Yet I fell for it again (he is talking unfairly of Eliziabeth) and should be grateful. Fetch Jud and Prudie, we have work to do.

Episode returns to mine imagery and setting we started with. A sign, Wheal Liesure is put up. Demelza is making a fire. Cut to inside Trenwith, dinner table, Charles and 3 women but Francis’s place empty. Cut back to Ross turning to Demelza come to give him his meal. Ross tells her she “did well today, but “if you miss your family” she can go home (illogical, why would he say that?) She is hurt: “You’ll be wanting rid of me … ” He: “I was merely offering you the chance to return to your home if that’s where you feel you belong.” She: “belong here I belong here,” and he smiles.

*************************

comingintotown
One of those shots from 2015 where a world is created and felt

To conclude from what these analyses show: Admirably Horsfield has reseen the books; she is more pointed. Her way of using embedded montage makes for less subtlety, more abruptness; the characters are given gnomic statements too quickly, with out grounding: they hate, they love. It’s a woman’s film insofar as she constantly recurs to the women’s stories. They are presented as much more oppressed, from Verity who is openly caged in, subaltern, subordinate, used, to Margaret who is ordered about. She wants us to see Ross as loving Elizabeth and see her as learning after she marries Francis that she loves Ross after all. She has a cyclical structure for both episodes, the ending returns us to the opening. I find I prefer the naturalism of the 1975 film, its longer scenes with precise thoughtful dialogue that is believable. The characters (except for the Warleggans) are kinder to one another; we live in a harder world in 2015. There was less anxiety about masculinity in 1975: the strong good-natured protective male, the weak well-meaning sensitive one; there is much less enjoyment for the characters in 2015 thus far. By having to cover less, there are more scenes of characters doing things that have little to do with plot, but capture character, milieu, time. More of Graham’s language makes its way into the 1975 mini-series but Horsfield is careful to keep or make up new epitomizing lines.

StGeorgeforEngland
The St George and the Dragon play played out in the 1975 fair, the kind of scenes the new style of movie and its mood has no room for

Ellen

Christmas
Morris and Martha Stanley (Ray Winstone and Emily Watson) attempting to celebrate Christmas as if they were still living in England on a searing hot day in the Australian outback (2004, The Proposition, directed by John Hillcoat, screenplay & music by Nick Cave)

Dear friends and readers,

I’m going to attempt to use this blog in a way I haven’t for a while: to think about a topic I hope to write a paper on by mid-summer: right now the working title is “On Inventing a New Country: Trollope’s Depictions of Settler Colonialism,” and in order to keep the paper relatively brief enough to read in twenty minutes I thought I’d try to limit it to Trollope’s texts about Australia and New Zealand. I’ve been reading for about 6 weeks now, and got myself through his immense travel book on these two countries, his 20 letters to the Liverpool Mercury, Harry Heathcote of Gangoil, John Caldigate and “Catherine Carmichael, or Three Years Running” (set on 3 successive Christmases in New Zealand). I’ve read some very good criticism on these and other of Trollope’s colonialist tales and travel books (North America) as well as on his relationship with his son, Fred, who moved to Australia and Fred’s life there. I didn’t reread but have been skimming and thinking about his brilliant short stories set in Latin America, “Returning Home” and “Aaron Trowe”, his “Journey to Panama,” as well as his Anglo-Irish novels, especially the first two, Macdermots of Ballycloran and The Kellys and the O’Kellys (after all what did the English do to the Irish but inflict settler colonialism on them).

I’ve found that rather consciously in the non-fiction Trollope explores, bears witness to, and analyzes the formation of a “new countries” and new national identity or identifications. He is concerned to show how the memories and norms of people from an “old country” interact with the geographical, new economic and evolving cultural and social circumstances the settlers find themselves in also to make a new environment. He contrasts this to processes of change he observes in the “old” country or culture — England and Scotland, France, Italy. There is a relentless conservatism in his conscious attitudes and he maintains a strong optimism about the overall outcome for the settlers and justifies the harsh injustices the settlers inflict on the natives of a country and the labor they hire or force to work hard for little or no money, take land from, or impose laws upon that deprive the people of their way of life and property. Much as I’d like to say Catherine Hall is reductive and hard on Trollope in her Civilising Subjects: Metropole and Colony in the English Imagination, 1830-1867, there’s no getting away from his racism and how all his thought tends to justify or at least accept as what do you expect Eyre’s massacre and murder of black people in an infamous incident in Jamaica. It’s neither true that there is a clear progressive liberalization in his views as he grows older and travels and sees more, nor a retreat into conservatism either (in South Africa he sees that black people must take back their country and rule it for themselves). I found it painful to read the arguments he uses to distances himself from free public education at the end of his Australian travel book (he’s against it — we must ignore or pretend everyone can afford these schools). He is making fun of philanthropists from Castle Richmond (where he supports the gov’t callousness during the famine, justifies evicting people) to the the chapters on New Zealand.

In contrast, I’d say in his best fiction his emphasis falls on the tragic price, losses, and struggles and very occasional compromises and successes experienced by the characters involved.

One problem I have at the outset is some of those texts that make for my best arguments are not those set in Australia. I’ve read through a great deal of John McCourt’s Writing the Frontier: Anthony Trollope between Britain and Ireland, and find a lot of what he writes out of these Anglo-Irish texts is germane. I know at the close of Lady Anna, Trollope says Daniel Thwaite, his tailor hero and eponymous titled heroine will free themselves of the class-ridden life that might make their marriage unsuccessful in England and make a new life for themselves in Australia (as he felt or knew at some level of his mind he had done by moving from England to Ireland). He wrote the novel as he was sailing there, but I suspect once he arrived and experienced the startling demands of completely different climate (very hot), the rigors of actually trying to farm or graze animals successfully or run a business in this unruly environment he could not imagine how they would make it — as he could for example, Martin and Anty Kelly in Ireland, or Anton Trendellsohn and Nina Balatka (from Prague, a couple parallels to Daniel Thwaite and Lady Anna) in London.

Several recent essays published in the new-style Companions and the collection on the Politics of Gender, bring to bear on Trollope’s deeper ambivalences his Orwellian/Swiftian satire, The Fixed Period — set in a country which is a kind of surrogate for New Zealand; for example, Helen Lucy Blythe in a difficult (for me as it’s theoretical) book called The Victorian Colonial Romance in the Antipodes. Trollope is only one among several authors “upside down” (Nicholas Birns has an essay using that title) that she treats very suggestively. Trollope’s deeply dreaming imaginative identifications turns deeply pessimistic and offers ideas that enable us today to recognize the inevitable sources of and critique the horrors of the results of military imperialism we see all over the globe today, especially some remarkable comments on the wars of the English with the Maoris where the Maoris (he empathizes) continually win (I was rooting for them in the instances described myself too.) I read the New Zealander years ago and thought parts very insightful and implicitly grounded in an accurate bleak approach to what human beings do and feel (and think they think), but don’t remember much any more.

As I went on the subject became all over Trollope. There is a satire on imperial colonialism in Framley Parsonage: Mr Harold Smith gives a speech on islands in the Indian Ocean which slides over an Indian or Vietname situation (the British in India, the French and then the Americans in Vietnam) people from the developed country instead of trying to displace the original people, take positions of power, in effect hire and control proxies and persuade themselves they are there to Christianize the benighted people. As early as Framley Parsonage, Trollope disapproves of this and disbelieves in the efficacy, and usefulness (in fact he thinks it does harm) to try to force Christianity on other cultures — he brings this up and develops this at length in his later travel books. In Framley Parsonage he makes a joke out of how his hypocritical or self-deluded (Mr Smith) upper class characters know nothing and care less about these far away places, yet these influence behavior, careers, and politics of these characters (certainly Phineas’s as a Catholic Irish man in Parliament and even Frank Greystock and Lucy Morris’s fate are influenced by an obscure sultan if I remember correctly in Eustace Diamonds).

To follow the ins and outs of Trollope’s thought and movement is to see him mapping the globe where English-speaking people are found. People think that the norm for Trollope is what is today called the Hampstead novel, domestic themed fiction. Novels of manner are his forte, what he is writing primarily or consciously: Gopnik leaped on this as explanatory for Trollope in the New Yorker. But isn’t he rather anthropological, and he has a good gasp of different faces of battle, how they work, inward and intangible to be sure, but outward and using guns (whose rapidity and ease in causing death he immediately cities).

Apart from books by Australians where they moved to the UK or US and write about general issues or poetry (Germane Greer, Clive James), and a couple of important non-fictions (Robert Hughes’s very great The Fatal Shore, and Russel Ward’s indispensable The Australian Legend), what can I remember that I’ve read of Australian fiction: only one colonial novel: Henry Kinsgley’s The Recollections of Geoffrey Hamlyn; two recent novels, Patrick White’s A Fringe of Leaves and Christina Stead’s The Man who Loved Children. Now first I’ll try First I’ll try my copy of Best Short Stories of Henry Lawson and The Portable Barbara Baynton and then choose a couple of 20th century Australian historical fiction novels (Peter Carey’s The Kelly Gang? not my usual sort of thing at all). For post-colonialism and imperialism beyond what I’ve read and skimmed, and articles on Trollope and these topics, see if I can understand books with scary titles like Border Dialogues: Journeys in Postmodernity.

It is for me perhaps going to be a question of identity and into imagined troubled journeys and hard experiences. I have a hunch I’d do better with that than imperialist politics. I’ll also remember and maybe rewatch or reread in the romance of post-colonial books and movies like Cameron and Merchant/Ivory/Jhabvala’s City of Your Final Destination or the same crew filming stark disaster in The White Countess (Ralph Fiennes, Natasha Richardson). Jumpa Lahiri’s books are also about this idea you can gouge out from yourself an identity that you feel is destroying you individually and make a new one by journeying to a new country or simply creating them out of books (The Namesake). The harder truth is found in Jhabvala’s A Backward Place, Mira Nair’s Mississippi Marsala, Paul Scott’s Staying on.

LauraLinney
Laura Linney as the necessarily hardened woman who has tried to go it alone, independently; a plangent role (City of Your Final Destination)

But now I’m rambling.

Ellen

Courage shall grow keener, clearer the will,
the heart fiercer as our force faileth …
— Anglo-Saxon poem, The Battle of Maldon (as translated by Michael Alexander

AidanTurner
Aidan Turner as Ross Poldark: as magnificient against defeat

EleanorTomlinson
Eleanor Tomlinson as Demelza Carne, asked where she is going (near final shots of Episode 1)

Dear friends and readers,

As I have written altogether too much (probably) about the twelve Poldark books, the 1975 mini-series (a Cornish Che Guevara) and 1977-78, Graham’s other historical fiction, mysteries and costume drama, I asked myself what could I contribute that would be found useful, or enrichening to readers of the books and watchers of these two mini-series, made 40 years apart. Well, comparisons. I will not be recapping; I assume my reader has read the novels, at least Ross Poldark, Demelza, Jeremy Poldark and Warleggan (the first quartet, written 1945-53) and refer him or her to recaps elsewhere. I find most far-reaching in the changes is how the popular vision, how we today see the 18th century is changing in films:

Let us begin with Episode 1:

Let us first admit there is a real similarity in what is covered and emphasized in two mini-series, though the presentation seems worlds apart cinematographically, and what was contained in two episodes in 1975 (the taking in of Demelza occurred in Jack Pullman’s 1975 Episode 2) and occurs in one in 2015 (the screenplay writer is a directing force in British productions, so 2015 is shaped by Debbie Horsfield). Neither film dramatized Joshua Poldark’s death, both begin with Ross coming home in the stagecoach; both have his visit to Trenwith where Verity and Francis greet him with emotional friendship, while Charles holds back; while the 1975 includes Pearce as a first visit and Pascoe as a second.

rossandpearce
Ross and Pearce (1975, where an emotional soft bonding counts, Pearce calls Ross “m’boy”)

RossandPascoe6
Ross and Pascoe (2015, where the banker is predominant in telling the bad news of no legacy that can support him)

Both emphasize how Nampara has become a wreck (though Jud and Prudie are made more appealing in 1975, more genuinely attached to Ross, and he less severe to them), Ross’s bonds with his tenant-friends and companions and decent humane behavior towards them. Centrally important, both take material from Warleggan, the fourth Poldark novel (the back story which is not told clearly or that emphatically in Ross Poldark, the 1st) in order to make clear how Ross has loved, in his mind and heart clung to, a dream of Elizabeth Chynoweth, so we have several scenes between them. Both have Francis and Ross going down in the mine and Francis nearly drowning because he tries to apologize to Ross for taking Elizabeth from him and arouses Ross’s deep rage, with Ross’s hesitation about saving him (“Why haven’t you learned to swim?”), the wedding, Ross’s desolation.

KyleKIollertryuingtoexplain
Kyle Soller as Francis trying to explain, openly vulnerable (2015)

companionable
Ross and Clive Francis as Francis Poldark, companionable, after Ross’s rescue, Ellis not as deeply angry as Turner (1975)

In literal details it may seem that the 2015 episode is closer to the book (for example, Ross meets Elizabeth first at Trenwith at the engagement party), but a second viewing will reveal some pivotal details have changed. For example, nowhere in the novel does Charles offer Ross 300£ to leave; Horsfield (however she may deny having watched or read the previous mini-series) got that from the Pullman where Charles demands 300£ in money owed him by his brother, Joshua, money Ross desperately needs and has borrowed from Pearce; Horsfield makes central to her first episode that Ross is tempted to leave and then decides not to because what is most meaningful to him in life is his relationship to the people there, the land, and what he can do for both through his ownership of possibly payable ground (mining). Horfield brings Demelza in much earlier than Pullman because Demelza is not seen as a raucous “fiesty” semi-sexual thieving rakish girl (a concept Pullman and his team modeled Angharad Rees on from Tony Richardson’s influential 1966 Tom Jones where women are coy sex kittens), nor Ross as combining the swashbuckling romance hero of Gainsborough costume drama (a kind of Stewart Grainger) with the strong leftist-liberal politics of both Graham’s 1945 book and the 1970s BBC progressive costume drama.

episode2
Robin Ellis and Angharad Rees from Episode 2 (1975)

Instead Demelza is a genuinely abject semi-cowed, beaten, subaltern young girl, understandably hostile (like a dog who has been badly treated), guarded against all comers, attached to her dog, Garrick, who alone has loved her, and standing for in Ross’s mind, Cornwall itself, what (he says in the last moments of the episode) he had almost forgotten, what he will retrieve, and the eighteenth century here is not a world of elegance seen from an upper class Austen-ish point of view, but from below, a grimy, grim, brutal, desperate place of people living mostly a subsidence life, where they are hard to one another.

Birfiresidedrinking
Ross by fireside drinking and eating with men; he often also drinks alone

walkinwithdog
Demelza walking, singing with dog alongside, but basically alone too

The analogy for 1975 is The Oneddin Line mini-series, for 2015, the recent Outlander, indebted to Peter Weir’s 2003 Master and Commander). Ellis’s ultimately descend from the Errol Flynn image of the gay swashbuckling, elegant hero, combining with the liberal outlook say of Albert Finney as Tom Jones; Aidan Turner’s looks are rough, Napoleonic era long coat and rebellious army man, strongly influenced at the same time by Johnnie Depp in The Libertine.

Other important differences which will be developed: Heidi Reed (2015) as Elizabeth Chynoweth is made much kinder, sweeter, less self-involved, and unlike Graham’s Elizabeth) partly marrying out of obedience to a mother and affection for Francis, guilty about Ross and herself rooted in Cornwall (all an invention on Horsfield’s part)

Reeddeepconcern
Reed given a penultimate speech to Ross that he must stay in Cornwall (completely outside Graham’s Elizabeth’s character

Jill Townsend is permitted to enact Graham’s concept in Warleggan of a woman genuinely frightened of the reckless Ross, seeking material comfort and prestige, in need of security. In neither series does the ambiguous woman, adult with complex motives, deeply resentful of Demelza eventually, and no friend to Verity, selfish and yet strong when and where strength is needed, not particularly enamoured of Cornwall (she’d love to go to London) whom Ross had fallen in love with:

Townsendturnsaway
Townsend turning away from Ross lest she be seduced by her erotic and affectionate attachment to him

Perspectives on the themes of Graham’s book matter: in both Verity is a kind of female Ross, both of them indifferent to worldly values of others; I found myself preferring Norma Streader because she is allowed to be more forceful and to scold affectionately:

Revenant
Streader is unafraid to project her emotional life: Ross is here the revenant come back

raremoment
Rare moment of selfhood for Verity (2015)

Horsfield’s version of feminism is to show us how women are subject to men (so Charles is made to use Verity ruthlessly, forbid her men — in 1975 Frank Middlemass as Charles wanted Verity to marry) and Verity does not get much chance to emerge until Blamey comes onto the scene. But Horsfield is much more pro-capitalist and conformist herself; she brings George Warleggan in much earlier as someone willing to negotiate work with Ross, more humanly understandable supposedly in his cool greed, more acceptable than in 1945 or 1975 (with the man of some integrity as a capitalist who will stay within the law, Nicholas, not there, instead the amoral more criminal type, Cary companions George).

triesto makefriends
Jack Farthing as George Warleggan making overtures (2015), Turner as Ross turns fiercely away

**********************

Some notes on particulars in the two series, with a (I hope) fair assessment. We should remember the 1975 mini-series had the advantage of not expecting a wider critical audience, of seeing itself as fulfilling a minority taste in historical film costume drama, and by expecting a smaller minority audience could be more daring, more original, take chances. The 2015 has the burden of being second, of having to endure comparisons (like those above), of having much more closely monitored ratings so it must satisfy conventional expectations (thus Aidan Turner had to be muscularly gorgeous).

Iconicending7
The iconic ending of the first episode (1975): Ross standing alone, swirling waters around the rocks

waters

1975: The hour ends with him on top of a cliff fiercely looking down as the music rolls. The motifs of the Cornish seacoast and rocks and surging waters are part of a subgenre of Cornish movies. There has been more money spent on music and locations that persuade us we are in Cornwall in 1975. I was stirred by Robin Ellis’s ability to convey complex thoughts and depths. He is cinematically equated with the sea surging against the rocks, hurling itself. He comes home to find he has been thought dead and people didn’t really mind: his mine property taken over; his bethrothed refuses to break her engagement; his farmhouse a mess. He fights intensely at each turn and at each turn his way is made harder. His one great and faithful friend is Pearce, the banker-father, who secures some money for him. I loved how Ellis as Ross spoke and acted truthfully at each turn: he saves his cousin, Francis from drowning: he explains his hesitation by saying he forgot Francis can’t swim, but also it would have been in his interest to let Francis drown. The opening paratexts and music are haunting.

Both films have good actors and much has been done to re-create the 18th century worlds. The difference is the earlier one allows the characters to come forward much more individually with their presences felt; they are not figures in a landscape; the way films were made were to conceive of actors on a stage; in 1975 the actors interacted directly and have more length given each encounter and are more rounded as we meet them (a good example of this is Ross’s meeting with Ginny and the Martins in 1975); thus we feel their presence and their significance much more. Pullman’s screenplay is better: the language is really more particular bringing out the issues and feelings of the people much more adequately with more insight into the nature of their responses to one another and their environment. I miss Paul Curran as Jud — he was just so utterly believable, mean and yet comic; the good nature of Mary Wimbush as Prudie.

2015: since Horsfield chose to bring Demelza in early and include in the first episode material that takes half the 1975 second episode there is much less time in the first 2015 episode to develop the scenes, even if 2015 has 8 more minutes. there is too much garden opulence around Elizabeth Chynoweth: the Chynoweths are as broke or near genteel poverty as the Poldarks; only the Warleggans are doing well. Phil Davis is an utterly believable Jud but less appealing; the new Prudie is grossly sexualized (Jud seems ever to be having sex with her off-stage). This series lacks the comedy of 1975; it is darker dramatic romance. The best scenes as scenes are those closest to the book of which there are a number, e.g., between Ross and Elizabeth where he breaks out in exasperation. There though mostly is a reliance on sheer pictorial projection; we are given the backstory of Ross’s time in Virginia and his young love for a young Elizabeth as pantomime in a prologue; the camera makes love to Demelza’s hidden wordless moods:

withdog
Playing with her dog

feelinggood1
Feeling better about being alive despite the putdowns and sordid jealous threats of the Paynters

The politics are not progressive (not pro-American revolution as in 1975), but darkly suspicious of all powerful people, Ross is seen as feeling the equal and friends of his men (Jim Carter, Zacky Martin, Mark Daniels), eating and drinking with them. Turner conceives him as forceful, self-contained as a survival technique. This series mirrors the scepticism of today in Britain.

wideseascape
The wide calm seascape is preferred (and a crossroads where a gibbet for hanging someone is placed)

2015closesonhopeinthemine
2015 ends on Ross and Demelza riding by the mine — he looks up to it as what he may hope to support himself and his servants, tenants by

Next week, Episodes 2 compared.

Ellen

StPaulsCathedraleConstable
John Constable, St Paul’s Cathedral — a landscape

A Syllabus

For a Study Group at the Oscher LifeLong Learning Institute at George Mason University
Day: Six Thursday mornings, 11:50 to 1:15 pm, Tallwood, 4210 Roberts Road. Fairfax
Dates: Classes start June 18th; last day July 23rd.
Dr Ellen Moody

Description of Course

Framley Parsonage has been looked at as the crucial novel which transformed Trollope’s career and made him a central novelist for Victorian middle-class readers. The novel was felt to give “a strong impression of life as it was really lived at the time.” Elizabeth Gaskell, a fellow novelist, wrote: “I wish Mr Trollope would go on writing Framley Parsonage forever, and as serialized in the Cornhill, illustrations by John Everett Millais, it helped make the magazine: “How good this Cornhill Magazine is!” Elizabeth Barrett Browning exclaimed, “Anthony Trollope is really superb.” We will look at novel, its illustrations, its place in Trollope’s life and career, how it anticipates Trollope’s next famous series, The Pallisers. 6 weeks.

Required Text: Anthony Trollope, Framley Parsonage, ed., introd., notes David Skilton and Peter Miles. London: Penguin, 1984.

Framley-Parsonage

Format: Study group meetings will be a mix of informal lecture and group discussion.

June 18th: Introduction; Trollope’s life, career up to the Barsetshire books; the first three Barsetshire novels.
June 25th: FP, pp 1-108, Chapters 1-7: “Omnes omnia bona dicere” to “Sunday Morning”
July 2nd: FP, pp 109-224, Chapters 8-17: “Gatherum Castle” to “Mrs Proudie’s Conversazione”
July 9th: FP, pp 225-334, Chapters 18-27: “The New Minister’s Patronage to South Audley Street”
July 16th: FP, pp. 335-432, Chapters 28-36: “Dr Thorne” to “Kidnapping at Hogglestock”
July 23rd: FP, pp. 433-563, Chapters 37-48: ” Mr Sowerby Without Company” to “How They All Were Married”

Suggested outside reading and sources (I’ll cover the chapter & 2 articles):

Barchester Chronicles. A 7-part BBC mini-series, 1983. Dr. Gilles. Scripted Alan Plater. Featuring Donald Pleasance, Nigel Hawthorne, Alan Rickman, Eleanor Mawe, Barbara Flynn, Susan Hampshire, Geraldine McEwan, Clive Swift
Bareham, Tony, ed. The Barsetshire Novels: A Casebook. London: Macmillan, 1983.
Cadbury, William. “Character and the Mock Heroic in Barchester Towers,” Texas Studies in Literature and Language (5:4, Winter 1964):509-519.
Edwards, P.D. “The Boundaries of Barset” in Anthony Trollope: His Art and Scope. Lucia: University of Queensland, 1977.
Gerould, Winifred Gregory and James Thayer. A Guide to Trollope: An Index to the Characters and Places, an Digests of the Plots, in All of Trollope’s Works. 1948: rpt. Princeton UP, 1987.
Maunder, Andrew. “Monitoring the Middle-Classes”: Intertextuality and Ideology in Trollope’s “Framley Parsonage and the Cornhill Magazine,” Victorian Periodicals Review (33:1, Cornhill Magazine II, Spring, 2000):44-64.
McDonald, Susan Peck. Anthony Trollope. Boston: Twayne, 1987.
Snow, C. P. Trollope: An Illustrated Biography. New York: New Amsterdam, 1975.

BarsetshireReDrawnfromSketchMadebyNovelistSadleirCommentary162
Barsetshire as drawn by Trollope and redesigned by Michael Sadleir (click on image to enlarge it)

On-line group readings:

From my website on Anthony Trollope
A group reading of The Warden
A blog on Barsetshire Towers
A blog on Dr Thorne
A group reading of Framley Parsonage

GerouldsFramley
Framley as drawn by Winifred Gregory and James Thayer Gerould (click on image to enlarge it)

olivia_de_havilland_ralph_richardson_the_heiress
Olivia de Haviland as Catherine driven wild by the implacable Ralph Richardson as Dr Sloper (Wm Wyler’s The Heiress, 1949)

fatherdaughter
As Dr Sloper, Albert Finney grim, determined to put a stop to Townsend’s courtship of his daughter, with Jennifer Leigh as a seeming sullen puzzled Catherine (Agnieska Holland’s Washington Square, 1997)

Dear friends and readers,

Over the past 10 weeks or so, a few of us on Trollope19thCStudies read and discussed Henry James’s Washington Square (1881) and then Anthony Trollope’s Sir Harry Hotspur of Humblewaite (1871) as remarkably parallel texts. While what proof there exists for a source for James’s chilling novella suggests he drew upon an anecdote he heard over dinner, people who have read both texts (and know how James faithfully followed Trollope’s career, reading novel after novel as they came out) have repeatedly drawn such useful insights from the comparison, it’s hard to give up the intuition that James remembered and rewrote Trollope. At least three of us also watched one or both of the admired film adaptations of James’s novella, and suggested readings of one or both of the novels out of these films. I can in the space available for a readable blog only suggest some of what we wrote.

******************

heiress-olivia-de-havilland
As Catherine Morland, Olivia de Havilland climbs the stairs to her room (a hard equivalent of Catherine “picking up her morsel of fancy-work, had seated herself with it again — for life, as it were” — ending of book & film)

We began with Washington Square. James’s story may be read as a parody and exposure of the way heterosexual romance and marriage are conducted in upper class society of his era, but the power of the paradigm emerges from his breaking all taboos by giving us a father who hates his daughter for not being wittily clever when she’d replaced her mother (we are not sure she was these things) because her mother died in giving birth to her. She makes him cringe that she’s his. In the way of families at the time Sloper has taken his penniless widowed sister, Mrs Pennimman in, but sees her simply as an idiot, not someone who can do Catherine harm because of her own selfish exploitation of everyone around her. Both women are naive but Catherine’s comes from her goodness of character and innocence. Morris Townsend is capable of appreciating Catherine’s sensitivity and intelligence, but he also wants her money. Among the many disquieting elements in the book is how James mocks Catherine too; she is an intensely poignant figure, cowed by her father’s long derision of her, unable to actively fight him.

The metaphor of drowning kittens is what the doctor is doing to Catherine at the same time as we are given enough ironies and flat statements in the rough scene between Dr Sloper and Morris Townsend to get the point that Townsend does want to marry Catherine for her money. For the reader who persists in believing in companionate marriage and that Townsend who appears to recognize how vulnerable and soft Catherine is will be kind to her, Mrs Almond’s comment, which embedded in these ironies, is to be taken straight (it takes a great deal of tact to read James even at this early stage) that she feels sorry for Catherine pings back to Townsend’s, don’t you care that she will be miserable for life. At the close of Chapter 11 he says he likes to inspire “a salutary terror” in her.

We have the problem of separating the narrator from Dr Sloper: the free indirect discourse does not make clear all the time whether it’s Dr Sloper’s thoughts that show such contempt of women or the narrator’s. When I go over it, I find again and again the nasty reflections are Dr Sloper’s. The narrator will say “poor Catherine” at least. The narrator says that Mrs Penniman is “perfectly unprepared to play” the part of explaining what’s happening. We might say Dr Slope is doing the right thing to check out Townsend by interviewing his sister, Mrs Montgomery, but the whole feel of the chapter is insinuating: he wants bad news; he does not want to hear anything good, and anything he hears he turns it to the worst. Why is Mrs Montgomery so reluctant to speak. She could have defended her brother at the assaulting words and does not. Why not? The words “salutary terror” the Dr uses of his relationship with his daughter lingered in my mind. He sees Catherine from the worst side. Whatever she does, he turns it to her discredit. She is patient and seems obedient, so he reflects “his daughter was not a woman of great spirit.” “Paternity is not an exciting vocation.” One feels he wanted scenes, wanted her to flee – -and thus be hurt. He’s an expert at rejection. He makes her feel terrible. Ironically in Morris’s dialogue with Mrs Penniman he resembles the doctor – curt, skeptical, and (for the reader caring for Catherine) singularly unsentimental. He is as grated upon by her as Dr Slope.

maggie_smithinterfering
Maggie Smith as Mrs Penniman interfering destructively in Catherine’s thoughts, and relationship with Townsend (Holland’s film)

While in Europe, the Doctor lets his rage come out. Catherine is justly frightened of him. She cannot quite believe he would kill her, but he could and lie about it. He does admit just a little that he is prepared to hurt her badly; “I am not a good man.” He is warning her. When they get home, we see her reaction was to move another step. When he derided her desire to be honest and not stay under his roof while seeing Townsend, she grew angry and knew he was abusing her and that gave her strength to distance herself from him. She tells her aunt this year has changed her “feelings about her father.” She feels she owes him nothing now because of how he has treated her.

Dr Sloper’s sister, Mrs Almond, sees Sloper’s continued enjoyment of Catherine’s misery. He’s a very intelligent subtle Mrs Norris (from Austen’s MP), subtly abusive. He gets a kick out of saying things like; “We must try and polish up Catherine.” He thinks her a dense dullard not capable of polishing — he’s sneering. The savage irony of the book is Townsend resembles Sloper in his scorn of people. Catherine is a tragic heroine. There is no one around worth her, no one around who could reciprocate on his level of love or strength — for we shall see she is strong. Not to act, but to hold out. Holding out counts. Anger becomes a healthy emotion here, and it carries Catherine through.

Then the doctor pulls it out to the nth degree: he accuses her of waiting for his death. She is going to wait and ask Townsend to wait in the hope her father will change his views. This makes him accuse her of wanting his death. She goes sick and faint with this. There is nothing in Catherine or Townsend’s behavior for that matter to substantiate this accusation. It’s not done to stop her marrying Townsend; it’s done to hurt her – to accuse her of the foul feelings he has. And he keeps this accusation up. What is a girl like her who we’ve seen is so moral to say in reply? she finally sees he despises her.

When she finally leaves the room – after he mocks her for saying that she ought not to have a farthing of his money by echoing that with “you won’t,” we are told “he was sorry for her … but he was so sure he was right.” He does not admit to himself he hates her. Of course not: he is amused; “By jove. .. I believe she will stick … I believe she will stick.” Is this a way to talk about her intense and complete abject anguish? He is looking at her as if she was some horse he was betting on and enjoying its suffering.

After Catherine spends a “dreadful night” (and it is dreadful even if she can get up and control herself in front of her father), Mrs Penniman meets with the doctor and he tells her not to do as she had been doing, which is not to practically help but and not to give any emotional support. If she does either, he reminds her of “the penalty” for “high treason.” I don’t think she is the quite the fool the doctor thinks: she says that her brother is “killing” Catherine. Sloper though is into control and possession.

How will Catherine fare if she does marry Townsend. We worry for her — he does not inspire enough confidence. Both her aunts say she is strong, but what if he is a total liar, and once married would betray and hurt her

BenChaplin
Ben Chaplin as Townsend irritated by Mrs Penniman’s hypocritical sentimental pretenses — to him she is a jackass (Holland film)

We begin to see Townsend is not worthy Catherine. The chapters at this point leave me shaking. When Catherine tells her father she should not live under his roof (very pious and James as narrator finds her absurd (I see this in my edition in Chapter 22, p 118, the paragraph beginning “These reflexions,” especially the line: “this was close reasoning — James finds her hilarious …); when Catherine tells her father this, he accuses her of bad taste. He disbelieves she really thinks that.

Catherine does not end in an invisible prison; she ends seeing what’s in front of her for real. And then (my view) she does like Millie at the close of the Wings of the Dove — for those who’ve read it. I don’t mean she dies — she does not die (her father has told her she won’t die of this …. ). ? It’s like watching a specimen in a fish bowl writhing. It’s as dark as Daisy Miller (written around the same time, also a novella) whose actual death is caused by the careless sinister minds of those around her.

I see the ending as Catherine ending up in a unlived life, turning her face to the wall because she cannot bear what she has been made to see. This is Milly in The Wings of the Dove, the hero in The Ambassadors, in The American, in “The Beast in the Jungle.” She will do a little good with the money she has. Death has at least freed of the corrosive father and she may live without someone near her who despises her. I had hoped for that for her and she got it without having to leave her home and cope with Townsend for the rest of her life instead.

The two film adaptations

The Heiress

MomentofJoy
Rare moment of pleasure in one another (Montgomery Cliff as Townsend)

There are great actors here in this film. Wyler directed both Ralph Richardson and Olivia de Havilland to act or become as half-mad people. Richardson’s eyes are half-wild once he is told that Catherine has engaged herself to Townsend. The only way Wyler could understand such a flash of anger and years of hatred and punishment is that the man was not right — and like the other movie, much is made of the death of the wife in childbed and his bitter disappointment at the difference. Miriam Hopkins is Mrs Penniman (and as with Holland with Maggie Smith playing the part), Mrs Penniman has intelligence (James’s character doesn’t). Maybe it’s unreal to make her so gratingly fatuous — except that Bogdanovich pulled that for for similar character in Daisy Miller and Chloris Leachman did that black comedy to a “T.” Catherine begins in such innocence and vulnerabilty I felt intense pain as I waited for her father to come down hard. Haviland plays the part as an adoring sweet girl. It’s was heart-breaking. And then she seems to crack, also goes mad, more obviously.

Wyler couldn’t face that Catherine just caves in — the audience might think her weak (I suggest above I don’t and I hope explained why). Wyler knew we should not have a semi-happy ending, so he has Catherine become deeply angry after Townsend does not show up to take her away to marry him. She goes into a cold rage of hatred for her father herself. And the ending is her refusing to show the father any affection after the scene where she says he despises and dislikes me.” She stays outside the house when he dies — the scene of his demanding her promise again is there, and fuels this hatred. When Townsend returns she plays a trick on him: says she will be ready at midnight; he comes and she won’t let him in. She goes upstairs in grim triumph of cold hatred and anger. The mood is grim for the last ten minutes, dreadfully grim. Haviland pulls it off — she was in Snake Pit around that time where she played a woman put in asylum and gone mad because of this.

Wyler does not get the humor or mockery of the text (neither does Holland)– Bogdanovich did make Daisy Miller as a pathetic heroine also ditzy and we laugh at her at least in the first half of the movie.

This is a remarkable and bold movie for the time — the black-and-white is used to make a nightmare of the house in the second half, not gothic, realistic. One of these Victorian mansions that is a prison — rather like Cukor managed in Gaslight. The angles are remarkable. At the first half of the movie we see Catherine full face, soft focus; in the second half Haviland hard nose is caught again and again; she looks bigger and stronger in the cased-in dresses she wears. She is on guard the way I saw it — but to say she is angry and getting back is to lose the tragedy. A beautiful soul is still there is the poignancy of the piece.

Holland’s Washington Square

romanceimage
An interlude of quiet understanding between Townsend and Catherine

A disappointment. It’s more than that both the father and Townsend were softened, and Mrs Penniman made smarter and more decent (so the portrait softened too), and that the essential attacks and mockery of the original were lost. It might be asserted, How can movies do this? It’s very much against the grain to present characters from an ironic point of view in the film media: it somehow invites intense identifications, strong emotionalism, and is realistic, but it can be done. I’ve seen in the 1972 Emma and in a 1972 Golden Bowl where it was achieved through the use of a brilliantly ironic narrator (Cyril Cusak as also the husband of Fanny Assingham). Bogdanovich’s Daisy Miller shows how the characters contrive to destroy Daisy — but then the ending is tragic and as long as you keep to it the point is made; Jane Campion’s Portrait of a Lady is not ironic, but she exposes James’s fallacies (like it’s good to have all these suitors persecuting you), and is truer to the instincts of James’s story — with Isabel ending with a sadist she is subject to, and Touchett a closet gay or someone unwilling to risk sex but wanting to himself control Isabel, vicariously live thorugh her which is a form of preying. I’ve seen two Turn of the Screws, one by Nick Dear which seemed to me absolutely true to James’s text, and he other by Sandy Welch showed up James’s text as lending itself to misogyny at least.

Dr Sloper (Albert Finney) is still a bully and cruel egoist, but he does not hate Catherine nor is he scornful or derisive; rather he’s possessive; his idea is for her years from now to mary an older man (like himself you see), and sit by him and knit or read — because she is too ugly and stupid to attract an attractive one. What’s wrong is Holland could not get herself to realize the ugly emotions involved. In both movies (as in the book) Townsend is sexually attracted enough and at first finds Catharine’s goodness sweet. We do see Townsend’s frustration at being caught between the father-daughter struggle in this movie, but the emphasis in the movie is on her obstinacy which is not made central to her strength. Holland is no sympathetic to Catharine and in an opening scene makes fun of Leigh as awkward. Holland does make the scene between father and daughter on the mountain scary and you really do feel and she does too Dr Sloper tempted to throw Catharine off.

Townsend simply both wants Catherine and her money. He says, Is that so bad? He does have a business; he is not preying on his sister (in James it’s not clear he’s doing that), and like the James story, basically he grows tired of waiting, feels he can’t take this relationship between the father and daughter and wants out. Maggie Smith is Mrs Penniman and while she does spoil the relationship of Townsend and Catherine while the two are away for a year, she has a lot of Mrs Almond in her.

Catherine (Jennifer Leigh) does have the devastating moment where she realizes her father despises her. When he suggests she will do best to marry years from now an older man, she pushes back and describes how she sees the years of his coming home to her all eager and love — that he was destroying her bit by bit by the way he’d greet her and live with her sarcastically. They do have the dialogue where she says she should not stay with him as she is disobedient and he lashes out with strong sarcasm that this is the final bad taste. She as a creature seems to him altogether in bad taste at that moment — here the movie does edge towards the text.

Courtship and marriage are validated. Catherine has a cousin who marries and is ever so happy, endlessly pregnant and towards the end of the movie Catherine is gaining satisfactin from caring for them too. Courtship and marriage as such are fine – as Townsend shouts, what is so wrong with wanting sex and money? is not that what all want? The framing of the movie is Sloper’s loss of his wife at the birth of Catherine so obviously he has been made so mean (this is implied) because he didn’t have this happy marriage. In the text we really are not told what the marriage was like, only that it grated on Sloper to have his abilities as a doctor shown up.

Apparently the studio was still unhappy about the ending which shows Catharine making do with having a school and bringing love to other children’s lives and finding fulfillment in her cousin’s children. They wanted Catherine and Townsend to marry and be seen as happy. Holland does not do that; it would be to make no sense of the story at all. Not that the ending of James’s story does not imply that social life is what a person must have and enter into to be happy, but James’s story shows it to be hell because of typical human nature’s selfishness, stupidity, predatory aspects — and Catherine needed something better to cope and survive for real. She’s not a saint but she far finer than all around her.

************************

still-of-albert-finney-in-washington-square
The wealthy father and daughter walking in a park (Holland film)

We then went on to read Sir Harry Hotspur of Humblethwaite and discovered it has the same paradigm and some of the same themes and outcomes. Sir Harry himself is imagined as a chivalric ideal male: there is irony as Trollope as narrator tells us Sir Harry spent his life as a grand seigneur in his great house spending money in order to be a central linchpin for the good of his community and by extension England. A respectable moral man, and married an obedient (conventional) wife 20 years younger than him. As the novel begins, a great tragedy: his only son, the heir dies, and the next heir is this — right away we are told — ne’er do well, Sir George Hotspur. Sir Harry has a daughter now 20.

Sir Harry then discovers “too late” what a bad prospect for heir, for the community, for his daughter, Sir George is: gambler, wastrel, idler, but even worse things …. When I read it first I did imagine a mistress, maybe illegitimate children (which is what Gwendolen discovers Grandcourt has). Why too late? he invited him to stay and he is immensely likeable as company, witty, handsome, plausible and it seems perhaps Emily has fallen for this. Not clear — she denies this to her mother and a new candidate, 10 years older than her is to come for Christmas. It’s made clear Sir Harry loves Emily: “he respected his daughter …” He is really concerned over the property as he has made her complete heiress of the property but Sir George will be legitimate head of the family. Her mother is in the position of Aunt Penniman, but very well meaning, not vain jackass

Chapter 3 ended Part 2 in the original instalment publication and it’s a deeply picturesque description of Humblethwaite. It reminds me of Ullathorne only much more so and not at all mocked. It’s Trollope’s adherence to this dream of an ancient seigneurial contented hierarchical world, rooted in Tudor times. Lord Alfred comes to court Emily and there’s nothing wrong with him — he fits in perfectly; he would have made a good husband. The point is made he wants her money and estate, but he would have taken her to London, given her a good life. We are told he did not somehow set her on fire — no erotic enthrallment

(Cont’d in comments). Chapters 7-11; Chapters 16-20; Chapters 22-finis.

Ellen

CromwellWristsCrossed

Programme Name: Wolf Hall - TX: n/a - Episode: Ep6 (No. 6) - Picture Shows:  Anne Boleyn (CLAIRE FOY) - (C) Company Productions Ltd - Photographer: Giles Keyte
Cromwell (Mark Rylance) holding up crossed wrists at Henry’s seething onslaught of accusation of plotting against him with Chapuys for the Emperor Charles V; Anne (Claire Foy) shivering in the wind, trembling as she waits to be beheaded (Wolf Hall 5 & 6)

He doesn’t exactly miss the man. It’s just that sometimes, he forgets he’s dead. It’s as if they’re deep in conversation, and suddenly the conversation stops, he says something and no answer comes back. As if they’d been walking along and More had dropped into a hole in the road, a pit as deep as a man, slopping with rainwater. You do in fact, hear of such accidents … (48)

‘He sent last week for a French executioner. Not from one of our own cities, but the man who chops heads in Calais. It seems there is no Englishman whom he trusts to behead his wife. I wonder he does not take her out himself and strangle her in the street’ … (382, Mantel personating Cromwell, Bring Up the Bodies)

Dear friends and readers,

Prompted by Anibundel’s blog The Course of History, and having finished Mantel’s Bring Up the Bodies, plus locating the release transcripts of Straughan’s screenplays, I feel compelled to add another perspective on last two hours (Act III) of this mini-series, though I know there have been many insightful conversations and blogs online, to say nothing of the print media, about it. I want to point out that this last pair turns this famous Tudor marital-sex imbroglio into a usable past, a mirror to see ourselves in, its obsessive topics circling round its terrifyingly, almost inexplicably powerful figure, Henry Tudor, the Eighth of that name: death waiting right next to us, memory continually haunting us from our particular pasts as each day vanishes, and terror, not just state terror:

HenrywatchingAnne
Henry (Damien Lewis) watching Anne, Elizabeth on her lap, reach out to him with an embroidered handkerchief

but what makes state terror possible, the obedient collusion of all who together make themselves subject to this terror

RichardcometotellHenry
Richard Cromwell (Ross Porter) come to tell Henry that Mark Smeaton (Max Fowler) has named the names of men to be accused of adultery with Anne

Bring Up the Bodies may be regarded as a kind of culmination of a group of what’s called gothic but are political themes in Mantel’s contemporary fiction, memoir, and essays diary entries for the LRB, literary reviews and life-writing as a writer. I know as steadily and maybe more continuously nowadays as Mantel that the dead are real (see Larissa MacFarquhar, The New Yorker, October 15, 2012).

The need to keep the film historical, and explain how these startling visible turns of events from making Anne Boleyn into a cherished legitimate queen and wife into a powerless traitor-concubine treasonably adulterous came about rightly takes precedence over the course of Part 5 and into the opening of Part 6. At the same time the central story line about our hero, requires dramatizing the inward journey of how Cromwell drove himself however part- (but only part) reluctantly to put together transparently inadequate evidence. And there must be a pivotal high drama for the hour so that the high point of Part 5 was Henry’s fit of unconsciousness during a joust, and the sudden hysteria and unmasking of many about the king, and the improbably resuscitation by Cromwell:

Noonedoinganything

The turning point for Part 6 the long interrogation of the foolishly vain Smeaton, seething with wounds over his “inferior status” and despised feminine brand of masculinity.

congratulatinghim (1)

congratulatinghim (2)
Cromwell congratulating the smirking Smeaton as Rafe watches and listens

And when Smeaton is taken away, Cromwell to Richard:

Well, there aren’t many men alive who can say they took me by surprise. Years of being despised by lords has made a boaster of him. Sometimes I think I should have taken him in here. I don’t want him hurt. If we have to torture sad creatures like that, what next? Stamping on dormice?

These plot-designs precluded the kind of quiet dramatization of passing events that count which were seen especially in Parts 1 & 2. No time for registering the increasingly criminal behaviors of Cromwell (as when he takes a tavern keeper’s wife to bed for a casual encounter, and later brings her to one of his houses, and has her husband disposed of) and the scope of his activities across England enforcing Protestantism, growing richer himself, and the many passing quick scenes, memories of such, letters to and from middle ranking eager sycophants (names familiar to anyone who has read anything of the period, as the Lisles).

Worse yet, well over half of Bring Up the Bodies is given over to Cromwell’s dramatic one-on-one encounters, from the slow gathering of envious vengeful or simply desperately self-serving witnesses (Chapuys, Jane Boleyn’s salacious malice), to the dialogues between Cromwell and his now grown instruments (Richard Cromwell, Rafe Sadler with whose family Cromwell shows his continued ability to love, to be fond, to be kindly cordial) and first Mark Smeaton, then the four accused (George Boleyn, Francis Weston, William Brereton, Harry Norris) and what we can call protected secondary characters (Henry Percy, Thomas Wyatt). In the mini-series only the last third of Part 6 covers this material. The book does give less time to Anne versus Cromwell because he keeps away from her until near the trial.

Yes I’ve found a flaw in the series: they needed seven parts. At least another hour.

****************************

The heroine’s text story-line is seen through Cromwell’s POV: he is ever coming upon and watching from the side the results, evidence, signs of Anne’s miscarriages (her own terror at the window after she bled after the king seethed at her trying to stop him jousting, with do you seek “to geld” me, Madame) and the way her gradual displacement is registered, most notably through the death of her dog: the helpless animal a cynosure for her.

bleedingdog
Purefoy thrown on the hard stones, bleeding to death

Cromwell: “The window was open.”
Anne: “He was such an innocent What kind of monster would do such a thing?”
Cromwell: “Perhaps he got up on the ledge somehow and then his paws slipped.
Anne: “– Paws slipped? Paws slipped? — “

A rare scene without Cromwell occurs when we observe her household shunted off to the side, turning on one another, but that is immediately followed with Jane Boleyn reporting it all to Cromwell. The way people become eager to tell him of the slightest breakdown of Anne (as when she says in the tower she doesn’t deserve this room and Kingston reports it unasked) reminds me of the McCarthy era when witnesses came forward to testify against other people. Doubtless my reader will remember analogies of his or her own. We see Jane Seymour’s presence and Katharine’s death through Cromwell’s observation from afar and visits, as if we must have some sign of these or the story does not make sense, with the accent of the latter falling on Anne’s (premature) exultation and (wrong) idea she is now secure (just the opposite in fact happens). But again the focus is on the terrifying: the creepy nightmare of Cromwell seeing Anne served up as a meat dish pulled by sticks through the table with her face photographed upside down, her dress this deathly creamy satin:

Upsidedown

I didn’t find the trial as philosophically memorable as the Bolt one from A Man for All Seasons; it was rather realistic, with Cromwell as the effectively trained lawyer trapping George Boleyn, asking leading questions of Anne. From historical studies (as well as her heir-daughter Elizabeth’s survival and reign) we know she was highly intelligent, but this is as nothing when everyone is agreed you must go.

**************************

Straughan is concerned that Cromwell should not appear a monster (and Rylance obliges by the quietude of his tones, face, and occasional hand gestures) so the revenge aspect of Cromwell’s motives are only quietly there. The memorable lines were in what was left of Cromwell’s encounters with individuals who provide phantom evidence, whom he turning into the dead.

So to Brereton’s outrage he takes him back:

Retort (1)

Cromwell: “Let’s go back. I remember in the late Cardinal’s time, one of your household killed a man in a bowls match.
Brereton: “Well, the game can get very heated.”

Retort (2)

Cromwell: “The Cardinal thought it was time for a reckoning, but your family impeded the investigation and I ask myself, ‘Has anything changed since then?’ John ap Eyton had a quarrel with one of your household only recently.
Brereton: “So, that’s why I’m here.”
Cromwell: “Not entirely, but leave aside your adultery with the Queen, let’s concentrate on Eyton. Blows were exchanged, a man was killed. Eyton was tried and acquitted. But you, because you have no respect for the law or Brereton “– I have every respect! — ”
Cromwell: “Don’t interrupt me! You had the man abducted and hanged. You think because it’s only one man, it doesn’t matter. You think no-one will remember, but I remember

To Norris’s complacent conceit, sudden bullying and threat worthy the ferociously corrupt Norfolk:

Norris: “You’ll not torture gentlemen. The King wouldn’t permit it.
Cromwell: “Oh, well There don’t have to be formal arrangements. I can put my thumbs in your eyes and then you would sing Green Grows The Holly if I asked you to.”

My favorite one:

George Boleyn: “But Mark Smeaton? — What has he done to you? — ”
Cromwell: “I don’t know I just don’t like the way he looks at me.”

He stonewalls Anne in the film, making her sudden reaching out to him feel more believable. When he looks out for her creature comforts (“Would you like your furs brought in?”) we get another more alienated light on how he looked out for Wolsey, Princess Mary’s and even Katharine’s transient welfare when placed in front of them. Given a chance, he will mouth platitudes as a wall around himself: to Jane Boleyn he inquires politely why she as a lady-in-waiting did not seek to “comfort her mistress.”

But what I suggest that we should note (while we wait for Hilary to write the third book, and then for the Straughan screenplay and getting the actors together, film-designers and funding together again) are aspects of Cromwell’s encounters with the king. When the king resorts to fierce bullying, Cromwell’s gesture of crossed wrists shows that there were tender moments with his father: it was Walter Cromwell who showed the boy how to soothe a wound with water and clenched hands. Henry makes an appeal which contains offers of friendship, concern, memories of shared interests, as when he takes Cromwell aside in the garden and pretends to ask what they should do for useful entertainment this summer.

Garden

Henry: “Will you walk with me? I wish we would go down to the weald one day – talk to the ironmasters. I’ve had various drawings – mathematical drawings and advices concerning how our ordnance can be improved, but I … I can’t … I can’t make as much of it as you would. It’s because … Well Because you are my right hand, sir. So, shall we go down? You and I, meet the charcoal burners?”
Cromwell: “Of course. But not this summer, sir. I think you will be too busy.
Henry: “Yeah. I cannot live as I have lived, Cromwell. You must free me from this from Anne.

When the evidence has been gathered and the trial is about to commence, Straughan does give Henry some lines suggesting that Anne aroused male insecurities, but nothing like Mantel’s books’ dialogues and monologues suggesting Henry’s intense resentment at how Anne once kept him at bay and then once having given in, delighted him in bed by transgressive sex. In Mantel’s book we see Henry’s rigid pieties come out to condemn her as someone who must’ve been whorish before she met him. In the mini-series the accent is again on how frightened people colluded in believing what they in their gut felt to be false:

Cranmore: “I never had a better opinion in a woman than I had in her. I can’t believe she’s guilty … Except I know Your Highness would never go so far if she weren’t.”
Henry: “She deceived all of us. When I look back, it all falls into place. So many friends lost, alienated Worse.When I think of Wolsey [Camera is on Cromwell hearing this, face to the side.] The way she practised against him. She said she loved me. But she meant the opposite. I’ve written a play. A tragedy. My own story. [gives it to Cromwell]
Cromwell: “You should keep it sir, till we have more leisure to do it justice.”
Henry: “But I want you to see her true nature. I believe she has committed adultery with 100 men.
Cranmore: “But her brother? Is it likely?”
Henry: “Well, I doubt she could resist! Why spare? Why not drink the cup to its filthy dregs?”

According to J.J Scarisbrick (a standard biography), Henry did write a play about Anne’s adultery. It’s a nice touch how Cromwell must flatter the king’s literary aspirations. In Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons, Paul Scofield as More pretends not to flatter Robert Shaw as musician and composer in order to flatter him the more delicately.

But the strength of the screenplay is to (as with the book) leave it improbable that Anne was adulterous but make it understandable that she could be suspected and even thought to have had sex with her male courtiers. Again looking forward to the third book and another mini-series, we should keep the ambiguities of Cromwell’s conduct and how Henry’s mind can twist something into plausibility in mind.

******************************

I have in another blog described the unflinching close-up way the execution of Anne is performed (“How can one tell of a life lived at this aware angle” — the question referring to Mantel herself). Here I want to say how this terror is reinforced by Cromwell’s slow walk back to the king, half terrified that the king might turn on him, and then the look in his eye as he allows Henry to pull him into a bear hug and Damien Lewis personates the half-crazed lunacy of someone who knows he can do anything to anyone, almost.

Armsextended

Eyes

A parable for our time, or a new man for how we today see all seasons. I remember reading later fragments in the papers of Anne Murray Halkett who wrote an autobiography of her life in the later 17th century as an adherent of the Stuarts. She wondered how it was that a group of men could just murder Charles I when everyone asked later on who would speak about it expressed horror. How could this have occurred? How is it all these people stand there going through this barbaric scene, each behaving with utter calmness over a detached head, a bloody corpse, a wooden box to take her away.

Head

Next to Cromwell and his son, Gregory (whom in the book he brings to demonstrate the boy’s loyalty) a man snickers over one of her women who had been so hard to her in the prison saying with frantic tones “We do not want men to handle her”: “It’s a little late for that.”

Ellen

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 231 other followers