Ross and Demelza (Aidan Turner and Eleanor Tomlinson, 2015) — wordless
(From invented commentary/choral scenes) Francis (Kyle Soller): ‘Ross, surely you must see with such a wife, you cannot hope to have entry into any respectable gathering … You will cut yourself out of society, consign yourself to …’ Ross: ‘a life of peace and seclusion, I must try to bear it as best I can …’ //Margaret (Crystal Leaity), sitting down near Ross: ‘I never thought you the marrying kind … is she wealthy? He: ‘Not at all’ She: ‘Is she beautiful? He: ‘In a way’ She, puzzled: ‘So, you love her? He: we get on … //George Warleggan (Jack Farthing): ‘I’ve puzzled you out … Ross: ‘Was I so hard to fathom? George: ‘Well, I thought so, but your recent nuptials have made everything clear It delights you to thumb your nose at society because you consider yourself above the niceties by which it operates … ‘ Ross: ‘Not above, just indifferent … ‘ (all invented scenes and lines)
Ross and Demelza (Robin Ellis and Angharad Rees, 1975) — also wordless
He (earlier in the scene): ‘Look at me … look at me’ (taking her head in his hands and making her face face his) ‘tell me the child is not yours and mine … tell me … ‘ She: ’tweren’t nuthin … it just happened … tweren’t made out of love … ‘ He: ‘It was made out of yours’ (sob from her) … ‘come’ … She: ‘Please Ross, let me go, ‘taint nothing to do with you, ‘taint nuthin you should think of … tomorrow it’ll be gone’ … He: ‘And you too.’ She: ‘take more than that to see me off, oh Ross, please … that’s the first time I called you Ross .. ‘taint nothing to do with you. ‘taint your fault ’tis mine’ (camera on his sympathetic face) ‘What would I do with a babe all alone?’ He (suddenly his voice loud and firm): ‘You won’t be alone .., we’ll be married.’ She shakes her head ‘No … no, you don’t want that … I will come back with you but not for that’ (she now caressing his hand). He: ‘The child’s mine too it’ll have a name my name … now there’ll be no more arguing … come … (lines from Jeremy Poldark and Warleggan as memory, though scene wholly invented)
Dear friends and readers,
I remarked when I first set out to compare the new Poldark mini-series (2012, of Ross Poldark and Demelza) with the older one (1975, first four of sixteen episodes also Ross Poldark and Demelza), and Graham’s Ross Poldark and Demelza, the two first Poldark novels (1946-47), my obstacle would be my deep emotional investment in the books. A film is a work of art in its own right, realizing the vision of its creators, what statement they want to make about the book (among many other things), and in most cases I have not judged a film by its literal faithfulness, and instead demonstrated countless times that films adaptations must be valued on how they speak to the issues of the time in which they are made, as well as commentaries on the original book (or books).
I can’t quite do that here. I found myself hit where I live to this day by the new Demelza and Ross’s first euphoric months of love in their marriage (so were mine with my husband), identifying, bonding with both, wishing Horsfield had dared to be more visionary in her depiction of the Pilchard harvesting by moonlight,
wishing that more had been made of the difficulty Verity and Demelza had in overcoming the difference of their status, education, Verity’s deep loneliness and Demelza’s need of someone to boost her self-esteem, not just by teaching manners, but how to speak to people who are in class and type above you: we see them confide,
dance and shop together a bit too quickly:
But I was gratified with the length of the depiction of that first Christmas, including Elizabeth on the harp, listened to in the book by Francis with exquisite appreciation and enjoyment, Demelza’s frightened luminous folk singing,
and the walk back:
It feels churlish to complain that in the book at Christmas Ross is deeply erotically attracted to Elizabeth, that she is no friend to Demelza, but jealous, and that far from drawing them together, the rich furnishings and historical paintings, the very heritage of the house for a time pulls Demelza and Ross apart again. Only when they return to Nampara and are within its grounds and walls does night and the “old peculiar silence” cease to make a barrier and “become [their] medium.” Their different pasts and personalities “could not just then break their companionship for long. Time had overawed them. Now it became their friend” as Ross Poldark ends.
Horsfield’s rendition was in fact not thematically faithful to Graham’s Ross Poldark. Nowhere in Graham’s book is there this continual carping at Ross’s choice of a woman beneath his class.
In no scene does Ross express any regret to any man about his decision to marry Demelza (as he does in this scene and to people beneath him in rank)
No one in Graham’s book threatens to withhold investment money, no one sneers; Ruth Teague is spiteful (and as in the 2015 film) gratingly mocks Demelza as our “reclusive” Ross’s “Friday,” but the way Horsfield continually voices the competitive (nowadays) and hierarchical (then) view that Ross has destroyed his future is anachronistic. Ross cannot lose his status as the son of an ancient family, and as long as Demelza can learn to parrot the manners of her “betters,” speak less demotically, dress right, with functional literacy, she could theoretically and does except for the abrasive sexual encounters she is subjected to because of her gender do very well.
The lines I quoted above are a product of Horsfield’s own buying into opportunistic careerism. The way up, the way to win wealth and position is through marriage, but as the younger son of an impoverished branch of a Cornish (marginalized exploited semi-colony within Britain), with no sympathy or desire to network or politick in his class, Ross was not likely to do better than Ruth Teague (in the book a fifth daughter of very much declining pseudo-gentry). I exulted in what I admit are the replies Horsfield dialogically supplied Ross with.
I had one insight important to me because Horsfield refused to qualify the love between Ross and Demelza during the sequence leading up to and concluding Christmas. Films can bring out graphically what is deeply appealing in a novel without discussing this explicitly: I have wondered why I love these books so. I saw in Horsfield’s fourth episode that what I love so is the relationship between Demelza and Ross Poldark: I identify utterly with her and find him intensely appealing through her eyes. Jim and my early relationship went utterly against norms: we married with no money at all, 2 pound 10 for a license, his parents took out out for dinner that night and left. He and I danced the night away in a pub and the next day went to work because we had 10 shillings between us. Those first months of my life with him were as euphoric as Ross and Demelza experience in the last part of Ross Poldark, from the pilchard sequence to when they are alone. Nothing could break out companionship we felt; everything outside was the junkyard of what did not matter. That’s how it was for us.
************************
Demelza’s supposedly “saved” father and religious step-mother reveal their hypocrisies
Paradoxically the 1975 episode 4 with its grating and (to those who know the books and films) infamous departures from the story is often closer to the radically communitarian, anti-hierarchical, pastoral and pro-underdog atmosphere of the closing quarter of Ross Poldark. It is true that Graham’s book exposes the hypocrisies of fundamentalist religion (as does this and the fifth episode of the 1975 mini-series). But it’s ludicrous to make Demelza pregnant after one night’s sex — apparently to absolve her of becoming Ross’s partner for two months before the marriage as she does in the book. The 2015 film also compresses time so we will not observe this — apparently it’s still not acceptable in a mainstream TV film for a heroine who is not promiscuous to have sex freely with a man before marriage. The anachronistic depiction of Demelza actually saying that she is not sure who the father of her child aloud would be beyond belief for the 1950s; much less the 1780s, when such talk would land her in the streets of London as the lowest of abandoned prostitutes.
To do what Pullman did is to erase what is beautiful about Ross’s choice to marry Demelza: Ross marries Demelza voluntarily even though he is still in love with Elizabeth at that point, because it is the right thing to do for her as a human being needing him (as she has nowhere else to turn to and nowhere else to go), and because he likes her very much, enjoys her company: in the book she has grown to be part of his life, his very being (as he realizes at the close of dawn after the pilchard harvest). It is an act of rebellion against his class’s norms, fostered by his anger at his peer’s throwing away of Jim Carter (whom he Ross identified with); he is not just indifferent to “society’s niceties” (since when is marriage a nicety?), but wants to be seen to scoff successfully at them. Which he does. In the 1970s Pullman and his team made the Poldark film engage in the contemporary debate on abortion: when Demelza takes the one coin she gets from Ross and crosses the heath to find a laywoman abortionist she is risking her life. There were abortionists in the 18th century but it was rare to attempt this once quickening (regarded as when life began) started which the film pictures Rees as into.
Yet in the book Ross does love Elizabeth and erotically and intensely and there is a scene in the Christmas sequence where he admits this. Without acknowledging this and Elizabeth’s materialism, Elizabeth’s hypocrisy in trying to use Ross as a rope to escape from Francis’s gambling, drinking and inability to please her culturally — how will Horsfield later account for Ross raping Elizabeth. She has made Elizabeth so pious, exemplary and without rancour towards Demelza that I am almost glad that Horsfield changes Francis’s character so at least he is naggingly jealous (and registers that there is love between Ross and Elizabeth). In the 1975 film Francis is rather hurt, unable to reach his wife because of his own lack of self-esteem (this is closer to the book and more in line with Francis’s sense of himself as the heir to the estate, an aristocrat with a lineage):
Clive Francis as Francis appealing to a cold Jill Townsend as Elizabeth
In the film unlike the book Elizabeth wants to leave Francis and anachronistically offers to go and live with Ross elsewhere (again a reflection of 1970s norms), and he agrees; but Elizabeth’s shock and horror (equally not in the book) when she comes the next day intending to make plans to come and live with Ross, only to discover he means to marry Demelza because he is pregnant does convey Graham’s Elizabeth’s resentment, anger, alienation, and Ross’s defense of Demelza as “no trollope” but the girl she ever was, prepares the way for Ross’s rage at Elizabeth’s entrenched snobbery and her later (as he sees it) betrayal of him and the resulting rape.
Pullman also conveys what is in the book: Demelza’s knowledge that Ross loves Elizabeth at least as much as he does her, something Horsfield omits. As directed and filmed, Townsend in that huge dress with her high hair is a physical obstacle as well as an intangible one to a fulfilled marriage for Ross and Demelza.
In fact this confrontation is central to the next seven books. For seven books Demelza will have to live with the reality that Ross loves Elizabeth as much as if differently than the way she loves her. By dramatizing this at the point of the marriage, Pullman and his director bring this out.
More to the point of filmic art, the theatricality of the clashes between Demelza and Ross over her pregnancy, Ross and Elizabeth three different times, Demelza and Elizabeth’s face-to-face silent confrontation and most of all Ross’s ride after Demelza across the wasteland, wrestling her down, and sudden tenderness and care for her in bringing her home is among the most memorable and effective sequences of both the 2015 and 1975 mini-series — and the language given them from the book voices the deepest of promises and obligation more forcefully than the 2015 lyrical use of montage however deeply pleasing
In effect the feelings are the same in 1975 and Graham’s book: by the end of the novel Demelza is aware Ross still loves Elizabeth intensely, or at least wants her as much as she, Demelza; she has been faced with the heritage and elegance of his house and family. There is much for them as a couple to overcome, and that is true to the book and true to life.
*********************
I have omitted the death of Charles Poldark. In spirit the 1975 film is quieter, it is more pious (Graham mocks the pretense and hypocrisy of the neighborhood grievers). I found the graveyard scene with the “man that is born of woman” speech moving. Francis behaves in a dignified manner at Trenwith just after; we see the desolation of Verity and how the self-centered Elizabeth cannot understand that her frustration is analogous to meaningless life (except for caring for Geoffrey Charles who in the 1975 film Elizabeth is seen as neglecting) she and her father-in-law and husband have imposed on Verity.
Horsfield builds up the death scene itself much more considerably. Nowhere in the book does Charles hand the responsibility for his family to Ross over his son. Horsfield uses it to convey her Francis’s bitterness: he is relieved his father is dead as there is no one around to denigrate, mortify and insult him (as we have seen Charles continually do). Horsfield’s really mean and sordid-minded Charles is as much responsible for Horsfield’s Francis’s wounded psyche as any demands on him that are outside his ability:
I find it interesting that in 2015 less piety surrounds the dead and there the film can return to more of the feel of the mid-century book.
In both episodes the desperately needed copper is found, and in both it has been voiced that this will only save the community if Ross and his partners can get a decent price for it. In 1975 Ross thinks he has staved off the Warleggan monopoly, that all his partners are keeping secret from Warleggan who are the members of the Carnemore Copper Company. In 2015 George Warleggan (Jack Farthing) has begun to break down the company because Dr Choake (depicted as a nasty evil-tending man — a child-like use of a character) has agreed to sell his shares to George. There are many things I respect about the book and both mini-series, but the most important is the attempt at a serious depiction of economic relationships and structures as the center of daily life.
Ellen
I’d like to comment that in several places I’ve seen it asserted that the PBS episodes are 7 minutes shorter than the original BBC ones. If this is so, serious omissions and distortions must be going on. Since the scenes in the 2015 are often so short, sometimes a few scenes, a great deal of material that matters might be cut. PBS does kind of thing when they have no respect for the material they are airing. They did not cut Wolf Hall this year nor after the first year Downton Abbey.
That the politics of a program matters may be seen in the Wall Street Journal not just noticing this series but indulging in snarky recaps. I’ve read 3:
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/search/Poldark%20recap,%20Season%201,%20part%202/?s=Poldark+recap%2C+Season+1%2C+part+2
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/06/28/poldark-recap-season-1-part-2/
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/06/21/poldark-series-premiere-recap-part-1/
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/07/05/poldark-recap-season-1-part-3/
Briefly:
First Leeds has not read the books. I think it’s not simply a case of pretending not to. She is clueless about George Warleggan, utterly unaware that in the books Francis Poldark has very different character. She regards the first as exposition. It’s not true that film adaptations stand alone or are supposed to — they can and the wider audience often does not even try to read the books, but however this is sometimes denied they are conceived from and out of the books, and it’s not just enrichening to watch the books, you get far more out of the film experience once you have read them. This is true for Wolf Hall to the Forsyte Saga.
She makes fun throughout, but the sarcasm and snark gets much stronger in the third episode where real injustice is on display (the Jim Carter trial scene), though throughout she can’t resist debunking the idea a man can have democratic or economic socialist ideals. Yes she quotes the line from Pip Torrens as Cary Warleggan that there is no other purpose for a business but to make the most profits but after all that’s the most exaggerated version of the idea in the two episodes. She picks up and recites all the implications in the film that Ross’s course of action is imprudent, unworldly, will hurt his business. That’s not the point of view of the story that matters. She picks up the feminism but grows indignant that the women are not more active. She has no feel for the romance between Demelza and Ross – has never read the pilchard idyllic chapter. She mocks Verity and Blamey. Her choices of stills are probably dictated by what she was given through the WSJ – and are mostly these impassive shots with Ross and Elizabeth predominating, or a duel, or the half-naked Turner sweating away (yes what a man will do to forward his career). Or the characters look out with the over-the-top dignity, or half-leeringly (Demelza dancing).
As to her history, the idea that Ross and Demelza would have been better off going to the US is hilarious. She seems to know as little about US life at this point as she does about Cornwall.
Yes it’s aimed at a popular audience, assumes they enjoy condescending derision. Her mockery of Verity makes transparent her real lack of sympathy for women.
A friend wrote to me about the economic thrust of the programs:
Ellen, thanks for the link to the WSJ round-up on episode 3 of Poldark. We watched the episode last night, and as with episode 2, I was surprised and impressed at the focus on and concern for the conditions of the lower classes. I especially like that Ross redefines the purpose of owning a business as a means to employ people rather than solely a means to make a profit for the owners/shareholders.There’s no “natural” reason that the primary rationale for a business couldn’t be making enough of a profit to keep people employed. I know the Dali Llama has gotten behind this concept and that a way exists in this country to incorporate a business as somehow both for-profit and humanitarian, and this designation has been used to start businesses with a primary intent of employing usually marginal (eg, released felon) populations.
In the time of the British airing I came across a sensible throughtful essay by a British professsor arguing the choice of this material shows the hard times and (lke a couple of TV essayists I’ve read on the 1975-77 series) that the 1970s was a turning point era. I know these re-bootings mostly come from the 1970s.
There is a world of difference between Diane’s tone and that of this recap person – -by the third Leed sickened me. I take heart in the idea (paradoxically) from what I see on the Poldark facebook pages most readers don’t think about what they read very much. But that one can’t count on that makes me write a blog to bring out the meaning of Leeds’s (puerile) discourse.
E.M.
I was delighted to find that Anibundel saw much merit in episode 4 and felt the series was finally getting into its stride:
http://anibundel.com/2015/07/13/poldark-episode-4/
Julie Taddeo: I think the new series is working too hard to make this a romance. What will happen if Horsfield stays true to the novels? fans will be very upset when they see what happens and this great love is shattered,
Me: I did forget to say that each blog for each week assumes readers have read all 12 books and seen the 1975 mini-series. In the way Horsfield is presenting Elizabeth and her relationship to Demelza as well as to Ross, I don’t see how Ross could come to rape Elizabeth in Warleggan. Horsfield also killed off Bassett who became Ross’s patron in the 7th book.
A friend watching Poldark:
Demelza looking to Ross for her salvation
Poldark: I never saw the 1970s version nor have I read the book, but am following this one. I love that it focuses on the plight of the lower classes and challenges the still-dominant ideology that poor people exist for the sake of the profit the rich can grind and squeeze from them. I loved when Poldark said he is reopening his mine not for profit but to primarily to employ people–and he ruffles the feathers of his own social class when he pays decent wages. He also crosses class lines to marry. He is actually a decent human being, who really sees other people and cares about community more than his own self aggrandizement. What a welcome contrast to a world that encourages us to focus narcissistically on our own “needs” to the exclusion of all else. The series so far (I have seen the first three episodes) is old-fashioned, and can sometimes be “icky”–moments of crashing waves and music coming to a crescendo as the lovers kiss kind of thing–but I am looking forward to what will happen next. But why criticize: Downtown Abbey does the same, but without the conscience or more precisely, with an entirely different lens of consciousness, than Poldark. But this too demands a post of its own.
From Poldark facebook: “Episode 4 when Demelza enters Trenwith….that great hall/foyer place has portrait paintings that are total anochronisms! As the camera pans over the walls, you get a glimpse of a portrait of 1850s woman, and then a Regency woman and then a Regency man (flanking the doorway, as I remember) ….” This is indicative of carelessness, a lack of attention to details and these matter.
[…] Poldark 4: lyric (2105 and 1945) and theatric (1975): the problem in evaluating a beloved vision […]
[…] Poldark 4: lyric (2105 and 1945) and theatric (1975): the problem in evaluating a beloved vision […]
I’ve come to realize that Francis is made considerably more appealing by Wheeler’s script: Graham’s Francis is witty, but his open self-berating and guilt are from Wheeler; also his generosity of spirit now and again.
Really? I’m watching Episodes One to Eight from the 1975 series. I have yet to encounter this witty Francis Poldark . . . at least in the “Ross Poldark” and “Demelza”. Instead, Clive Francis’ interpretation of the character bore a very strong resemblance to Kyle Soller’s in 2015 . . . a self-pitying and temperamental loser. When will this witty Francis manifest . . . in the adaptations of “Jeremy Poldark” and “Warleggan”?
Then there was the matter regarding Francis Poldark, George Warleggan and the Carnmore Copper Company. Episode Six of the 1975 version featured the Warleggan Ball, like Episode Six of the 2015 series. Yet, in the 1975 version, George told his father that he discovered the names of the Carnmore Copper Company on the morning following the family’s ball . . . right at the end of Episode Six. I discovered in Episode Seven that Francis had told George about the shareholders . . . before Verity had eloped with Captain Blamey and Francis discovered that Demelza had helped them. Now I wonder . . . why did screenwriter Paul Wheeler had Francis reveal the names of the Carnmore Copper Company’s investors in the first place, if he didn’t do so in retaliation to Demelza helping Verity?
Did you get my offer to send you my paper?
I know that I did respond to one of your comments with my email address. If you will be polite and respond by asking for it, I will send it once more. After you’ve read my paper, you will see my considered response to these two series, sometimes of the way I see the books. If you don’t pick up on this, I will just cease answering you.
I do write about the books on these blogs too and my guess is there we would disagree too.
Here you will find all this:
http://www.jimandellen.org/poldark/Poldarksection.html
I tire of these adamantine objections and debates. We have a very different sensibility, tastes, outlook is my response. I have no more to say, can say no more than that because that is everything.