Winter Solstice: Ghost and Christmas stories

A photograph of the snowy Yorkshire Dales (light cover of snow), 2023 (from All Creatures Great & Small)

Dear friends and readers,

Over the past few years I’ve made a habit of writing Christmas blogs — on movies I’ve seen, Christmas specials of TV series, books or stories read, or as a theme in a long-running TV series (e.g., “Christmas in Poldark“). I suspect I’ve written too many, of which too many were overlong (just type in Christmas in the “search” box to the right side at the bottom). Well, this year I have but one thus far (and may not have another), the ghost stories I read recently in a Politics and Prose online course with a professor of British literature, Victorian specialist, Nicole Miller. I enjoy ghost stories, and myself taught them for about 3 years at George Mason, and know she partly chose the topic as appropriate to Christmas time – she also teaches a much longer-length one at the college where she is (presumably) tenured. The telling of such stories is presented by people today as having been prime entertainment during Christmas in the 19th century, the first era of our present commercialized Christmas increasingly centered on family and friends.

John Millais, “Christmas Story-Telling,” “Christmas Supplement,” London News, 20 December 1862

On our Every-Other-Week online Trollope reading group (hosted by the London Trollope Society), we may be said to have almost suffered through one of Trollope’s rare failures, “The Two Heroines of Plumpington”. I say almost because the story was rescued by the hard work and absorbing information the speaker bout the story, Chris Skilton, brought to and out of the story. He showed how autobiographical it slyly is, and its themes of class, ambition, money. After he finished people in the group immediately began to talk of problems or flaws in the story.

I offered the idea that writing Christmas stories was such a trial for Trollope, such a struggle to pull off, because Christmas stories have since the inception of this custom been associated with or outright ghost stories, and nothing was further from Trollope’s robust and sceptical temperament — than either the prevalent type, unnerving, uncanny, often with a malevolent revenant, come back to haunt indiscriminately whomever is unlucky enough to enter their imaginary; or the type Dickens seems to have been the first to invent, in his The Christmas Carol, where benign presence (or presences) come down from somewhere determined to retrieve the past, and redeem the present of some suffering wronged or wrong-full person. Is not this It’s a Wonderful Life, even if 20th century disbelief seems to demand a being no-one credits for real, an angel who looks anything but? Clarence, we all instantly remember, needed to be promoted — what a mid-century American comic take for the sake of probability.

Henry Travers as Clarence (It’s a Wonderful Life)

Miller’s was a very rich course; we met for 2 and 1/2 hours for three sessions (each staying over an extra half hour) and read some interesting (some of the best) stories by Dickens, Henry James, and Edith Wharton. I’ve written about The Turn of the Screw here (as “the problem of moral panic”), and several of the Edith Wharton’s on this blog, Austen Reveries and the gothic section of my website (see Reading … Winter Solstice, “The Lady’s Maid’s Bell,,” “Afterward,” “Mr Jones,” as well as Dickens’s “The Signalman: the trauma of technology.”

Before each of the three discussions about the individual authors, Prof Miller held forth on ghost stories themselves, or some aspect of them related to the author we were exploring that session. It seems the form was especially reveled in by British and American authors; and may be said to emerge archetypically from fear of shadows (all sorts) in our homes, accidents and traumas surrounded by an atmosphere of the new large cities, phantoms from newness, unknown “strange” people, eruptions from people’s pasts, the old (haunted houses), the new (scientific discoveries, psychical research), dread of death and the dead (seances). M.R. James (see my blog on recent film adaptations to be found on YouTube) singled out reveling in spectacles theatric, evoking from the mind psychological allurement of dramatic interaction, strong literary high quality (your language must be powerful and precise), frightening and short. The reader must be complicit; the author creative and original. The ghost and Christmas story is bound up with our reaction to winter, the cold, the darkness, change. The story that ends with redemption offers balm to our anxieties over time, non-integration of ourselves (we are left out, left behind), a saving of a desolate soul. This is a view I agree with.

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

The book I used to read Dickens’ ghost stories in is Peter Haining’s Complete Ghost Stories of Charles Dickens, Franlin Watts, 1983, with original (Phiz) illustrations. They are too small to make the nightmare impact intended. I read a number of them and was impressed how the pattern we find in Dickens, of a withdrawn man transformed by an experience of the supernatural recurs; similarly, that Dickens was himself sceptical of the reality of ghosts, despite the Christian providential nature of his paradigms. Near the later part of his life he while traveling with Ellen Ternan and her mother was involved in a disastrous train crash, and the trauma of that is translated into “The Signalman.” Scrooge resembles him in life in numerous ways — which has also been pointed out by others.

Alistair Sim as Scrooge on Christmas morning, fairly hysterical with relief as well as cheer

Since so many of us have heard or watched A Christmas Carol, and (I assume read about it), I shall keep this section brief (see my blog on how I cried and cried the last time I watched). The famous opening rivets us. Insistence on how Marley was dead. All is dark, bleak, Scrooge a withered utterly selfish sardonic alone old man. The clock tolls throughout the story: there are many bells. The uncanny and inanimate come alive. The point (as in other stories in this volume) is to reform, transform Scrooge. The air he travels through with the “Ghost of Christmas Past” is filled with phantoms. A Blakean world of the dispossessed. “Christmas Past” is presented as a child-like old man. We see the boy abandoned. We see how little it literally cost Fezziwig to make cheerful scenes for all. Christmas present is the ancient Green Man turned sardonic. A cornucopia of delights. The famous boy and girl, Want and Ignorance — wretched, abject. Then the last fear of death. This phase continues modern desolate scenes — like the lighthouse in the storm. Amber colored. Scrooge cannot face that he is not mourned, that he is erased, his things stolen. Then when Scrooge awakens and it is only the next day and he feels he has time to change, the intense joy.

An illustration from a volume of Dickens’s Christmas stories, 1867: The apparition, more in the mood of “The Signalman”

By contrast, the deeply darkly haunted nature of “The Signalman” and by the end how little explained. This comes right out of Dickens’s own traumatic experience of a vast train crash, where he played the part of a hero, rescuing people at risk of his own life. Prof Miller thought Dickens’s fiction itself as a whole altered after this incident. The man isolated by technology; given no chance to educate himself and live among men due to his class. The earlier stories in the volume are yarns, the later ones sceptical.

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

A still of Michelle Dockery as the awestruck governess, maintaining some calm (Sandy Welch, 2009, framed by a story of an unjust imprisonment of an apparently disposable woman)

For Dickens, much of the class time was taken up by “A Christmas Carol,” which is a literary gem, perfect masterpiece and she hardly got to “Signalman,” so she avoided “Turn of the Screw” until near the end — incurring resentment I felt among some of the people in the room who were there to discuss this never-endingly intriguing (ambiguous) novella. I learned that the misogyny has gotten so bad that some people regard the governess as wholly a liar, now living in an asylum (thus degrading her utterly and making the manuscript inexplicable), which explained to me for the first time why Sandy Welch’s 2009 Turn of the Screw is framed by showing us the governess put unfairly into an asylum while the inset flashback story has the children in utter collusion with the evil ghosts (there all right).

Quint and Miss Jessel from the 2009 film

Flora — look at the child’s face

When first published, it was rightly seen as capable of being interpreted as a governess caught between two deeply harmful corrupting spirits and susceptible yet still partly innocent (unknowing fully) children.

For Henry James, though I had many of the stories separately in decent editions with introductions and notes, I bought the recommended copy (sold by Politics and Prose too), Ghost Stories of Henry James, Wordsworth edition, 2001, re-issued 2008, with an introduction by Martin Scofield. The book also includes James’s prefaces to all the stories but The Turn of the Screw, and his musings/introduction to The Turn of the Screw. Scofield is very helpful. An early story, “The Ghostly Rental,” surprised me by unnerving me. I began to have the kind of inward fears of myself that M.R. James can provoke. James has the power of sudden single powerful words to make the reader feel a ghost is suddenly caught on a page. There are moral lessons in “Sir Edmund Orme” (against bad actors), and stories that hint at Bluebeard and Medea paradigms (murderous men, vengeful women). There is a coolness here; he undermines beliefs in family love, is himself almost anti-children — who are seen to be collusive and alienating in stories beyond The Screw. In one story, not a ghostly one, a novella, The Other House, James has a group of people murder a child and get away with it. After that I could not read James for years.

For Henry James, Miller concentrated on “The Friend of the Friends,” where the friend is no friend to two others, and in the story’s end does all she can to keep them apart (out of jealousy) and “The Jolly Corner,” where the corner is a site of telepathic unnerving doubles, signaling death, as well as a portal to an imagined world where James could overcome his revulsion a reality, and invent richly. The conceit of the “The Friend of the Friends” are the two targeted people each had a parent who died and appeared to them at the moment of death. They are obsessed with meeting but somehow something always comes up to prevent the encounter; until at the death of the woman they do meet, and our narrator believes this enables them to meet ever more. In both stories we are in a thicket of dreams and events that are like the forest of fairy tales. I liked the way she talked of “The Jolly Corner” to make it an explanation of James’s obsessive themes of life, living having passed him by, missing out on being another admirable self, life as an adventure because the need for a sense of security makes the narrator withdraw to seeming safety, but leaving his conscience haunted. Alice Staverton in the story, the childhood friend, could stand in for Constance Fenimore Woolson.

Jodhi May as the governess is the victim, if herself neurotic, of Colin Firth, the exploitative master, in Nick Dear’s rendition

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

From the edition I was reading, The Ghost Stories of Edith Wharton, Scribner, 1973, illustrations Laslo Kubinyi

The third and last, the Edith Wharton session seemed to satisfy everyone — equal time given to about 6 stories. Prof Miller saw Wharton as pulling together the theorist, personal experience, a cultivation of art, with a real feel for the uncanny. Her ghost stories are mostly post WW1 (though they can be set back in early modern and 18th century times) and are a reaction to that calamity as well as her study of Freud exploration of the irrational inner life. Dickens is writing Victorian and Wharton 20th century ghost stories, with James bridging the two eras. Yet the characteristics of each are not predictable by era: in James the ghosts erupt from within people, are their terrifying other selves. I should not omit sceptical humor in Dickens (especially from Scrooge), and how quietly good M.R. James is at this

In one filmed story of M.R. James, a character needs binoculars in order to see the ghostly castle

Wharton’s stories are of severe female oppression/ imprisonment, of people haunted by dead people, some of whom remove a beloved from us. In “Kerfol” (see the above illustration) an early modern woman is kept alone as in a cage and each time she finds a companion in a dog, the dog is slaughtered; “Mr Jones” reveals a similar story that occurred 2 centuries ago, with a vampire controlling two women in the mansion in the present day, seemingly idyllic. These stories are filled with places women must flee from. “Pomegranate Seed” differs in being aligned with the myth of Persephone, only now Persephone is a dead wife who writes letters to her husband now married to our heroine, letters which deprive him of life’s blood, he himself goes grey, feebler, and eventually, like the husband in “Afterward” disappears. I remember how when I first read them, they made me feel dread I would lose Jim similarly. Well I’ve lost him, but not to a ghost. Like James, some of these stories are intended to baffle us, with the ghost visible only to the seer. “Fullness of Life” an early, and “All Souls” a late story both concentrate sheerly on the inner life of the protagonist, so there is little left of the Victorian gothic furniture, not even revenants for sure. Gentle souls, hounded, abandoned in a sinister silence — “Afterward” has the heroine for the rest of her life in that still house in the library room with some “horror” she feels is there forever after. This is like the person who sees these accusatory eyes after he has done some morally reprehensible (if not criminal) deed.

From “Afterward:” this is before the woman has lost her husband but has premonitions, glimpses a ghost from the old house’s parapet

As with Dickens and James, but more so (more stories) Wharton’s ghost stories have been filmed marvelously well, in her case by the BBC in the 1980s in a series called Shades of Darkness, produced (naturally) for Christmas. “Bewitched” becomes a vampire-witch story as Eileen Atkins as the grim central heroine (reminding me of the close of Ethan Frome) demands the men in the room drive a stake through the heart of a dead woman said to be appearing to and harassing her worn husband.

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

I’m probably not doing justice to the three classes or the stories: nowadays my notes are scarcely readable: my hands cannot hold a pencil tight enough and write the Pitman forms precisely accurately enough to read back all that I am trying to get down — my hands are the ghosts of what they have been. Still I hope I have said enough that is understandable that might lead my reader to read some of these stories and see the movies for yourself.

It’s not true that such matter must be short; the very best I know of are novellas, and if I had the courage, I’d do a course in these five: Margaret Oliphant’s Beleaguered City, Henry James’s Turn of the Screw, Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House, Susan Hill’s Woman in Black, and Valerie Martin’s Mary Reilly. All but one (Beleaguered City) have been filmed, all but one by a woman,and two of these (Hill House and Woman in Black) have produced the two most frightening the memorable (as in leaving me with nightmare images I am afraid my mind will call up — Hill House, Robert Wise, 1960; and Woman in Black, 1993 BBC). I’d be grateful to any reader of this blog who can cite further novella-long brilliant ghost stories.

Pauline Moran as the terrifying “woman in black,” a woman deprived of her child, who goes about snatching other children — I actually still fear seeing this image at the other end of a room late at night

We have seemed to move away from Winter Solstice or Christmas. So we return to our respectable or seasonal acceptable topic briefly. So why are so many a typical Christmas story also a ghost story? Because as the year closes in, we want to retrieve time, look for redemption for ourselves, but also remember the past with all its pain and loss and seek a way to express this most deeply. We do not look for moral lessons, and pace Trollope, are not longing for stories of charity and forgiveness as such, but only as the latter theme (forgiveness) works itself into what has been so harmful for us across our lives. For the rest of the year the delving into the atavistic parts of the human psyche, condition, experience, Kafka-like (see Jack Sullivan’s little book on ghost stories as “elegant nightmares”) is what ghost stories do.

After all this I cannot say “Merry Christmas!” but I can wish for us all, after the nervous laughter has done its distancing work from the experience of the ghost story (how we ended Miller’s class), hope for us all that the experience of retrieval and redemption Dickens dreamed up and Frank Capra re-caught again will be the one we know.

Now I ask my readers to forgive me: I am very sad this year; the death of my beloved female cat, Clarycat, has made this year, this Christmas, one where I am feeling the years’ losses and wish I could be haunted by her out of her loyal love for me.

Clarycat missing us, photographed close-up during one summer time away for Jim and I

Ellen

A. S. Byatt has died: some honest thoughts in praise of her books

Friends and readers,

A. S. Byatt or Antonia Susan Drabble Duffy (1936-2023) died yesterday, and I want to remember and to praise her work tonight. I direct the reader to the NYTimes obituary which gives the bare facts of her life’s chronology, concise general information about her better known books and famous or celebrity-type autobiographical “information” about her (her quarrel with her sister, Margaret Drabble). Penguin is somewhat better as their obituary tells you how she built her career: through her job/position with Chatto and Windus. This is very like Jenny Uglow who morphed a long career with Chatto and Windus into a far more successful (from the point of view of her readership and the quality of her books) long (in both sense of the term — her books are long and the list of them long) series of brilliant biographies and histories.

Unfortunately when I was reading Byatt’s books avidly, studying them minutely, scrutinizing them by the inch, I was using Write (WRI) files and tonight I have failed to be able to convert these to rtf or txts or word documents. As usual, I don’t know what steps I am omitting. So quite a large number of files from the 1990s are lost to me.  I cannot therefore provide details on her style or the structure of her booksor names of characters.   Here is what I remember.  They tell of how I fell in love with her Possession, A Romance, and among other things, drew a calendar or timeline as well as outlined the interlace of past and presents in the book. I taught it once to a very patient class; looking back I wonder how many of them read the book, a few loved it the way I did and I found some long-saved student papers about it. I loved the long epistolary sections, the journals, the description of Brittany.  I knew and know still it is no feminist book, and its woman’s art is like that of Outlander, perhaps even more compromised. Its innermost heroine, Ellen Ashe, has been too terrified of a man’s penis to allow Randolph Henry Ashe, the book’s historical hero, a gentle tender Victorian poet who combines traits of Ruskin, Browning, Tennyson and G.H. Lewes, to ever fuck her. The phenomena of women’s lives are put before us through several heroines in the past and present. The central Victorian heroine, Christabel LaMotte, is modelled on an amalgam, a composite of George Eliot crossed by Charlotte Bronte, with her poetry and isolation making her a Christina Rossetti and imitator of Emily Dickenson.

Another Pre-Raphaelite cover though the story is set in contemporary Britain (for some this might be their favorite novel)

I went on to read another novel I’ve never forgotten, Still Life, written just before Possession, the first book I ever read which described a woman in labor. It gripped me to the last stunning page where our heroine turns into a still life. I tried to convince myself I loved Angels and Insects. I was able to read a great deal of its first novella, about Tennyson’s grief over Hallam’s death as a jump-off about the Victorian obsession over omnipresent death; and of the second novella, a rewrite in some ways of Austen’s Persuasion, a book also bout “the” Victorian obsession with atheism and death, this time with seances.  But much of both of them were written in such dense and abstract prose, I could not understand her meaning. The unreadability of this one for me is also found in The Biographer’s Tale (whose hero’s name, Phineas, suggested an Anthony Trollope connection) where the fascination for the author was the relationship between photography and the real presence of people.  I could never get into The Children’s Book at all. Babel Tower, another interlaced romance (following upon Still Life) was readable, just, but The Whistling Woman (the next in a Fredericka Quartet)  with its extraordinary accomplished woman who nonetheless, is the center of a terrifying violent sexual scene with an abusive husband, and moves into a feminist phase, defeated me. Very frustrating.

Byatt had a French phase: one of the stories is about a teenage girl studying Racine; another Proustian

I had a repeat experience with her short stories: the first volume, Sugar and Other Stories was filled with stunning contemporary stories. I remember one was about an old woman living alone and thus old women as such; “The July Ghost,” was a transfer of her intense grief at the sudden death of her 11-12 year son in a bike-car accident into a powerful ghost story. But as she went on, these short texts also become dense, this time with archetypal imagery, where one was required to parse them rather than read them. They turned away from any realism, and were like paralyzed frozen pictures.

Earlier today I was thinking about her non-fiction narratives because I have been reading one very great one, John Sweet Wood’s The Sewing Girls’ Tale — about a rape in later 18th century New York City, how this morphed into a trial where class came before gender, and then a riot, an attempted suicide, a cause celebre in newspapers of the time, a civil suit &c&c.  One of these earlier Byatt narrative non-fictions, UnRuly Times, centers on Wordsworth and Coleridge as real men and poets, as telling more truths about their sex lives than the traditional biographies — and also their personal relationship to their radical politics (insofar as they were radical). I still remember the scene of Dorothy Wordsworth weeping on a couch as in another room her brother, William, and his wife, Mary, were in bed together. Byatt thinks Dorothy and William were lovers (as do a few other Romantic scholars). In her non-fiction narrative books the quality stayed the same as far I can tell, but she didn’t write many.

Now I wonder about these covers — what audience do her publishers think her books appeal to?

Again, I loved her Imagining Characters, a series of conversations with Ignes Sodre about 6 women writers, to wit, Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, George Eliot and less centrally Iris Murdoch (about whom she wrote a book), Willa Cather and Toni Morrison (perhaps today I could try to read that). The final conversation is about the relationship of the characters in specific novels to their reincarnation in films, which has some of the most insightful remarks on these writers and adaptation I’ve read. But when I dipped into her literary essays in Passions of the Mind, I discovered them to be very good, but more conventional, the sort of writing you would expect from a Leavisite (her first book was a wooden imitation of D.H. Lawrence). They represent a falling off from Imagining Characters. Much more interesting are her series of lectures, History and Fiction (as she wrote narrative history and historical fiction), though there she finally gave away why finally I couldn’t go further with her (nor she with herself): she looks to “fathers” and “forefathers” as predecessors, with the only women allowed in mainstream 19th century women, two very veiled angry ones (Murdoch and Cather) and Morrison (I do believe because the later novels are so difficult to understand and thus attracted Byatt).

What happened to her, what the explanation for her turning away from an imaginative fictional exploration of the woman’s matter she began with, I do not know. I can’t read the postings and notes I made at the time. Now in 2023 if you look at the list of her books you see a general falling off in the mid-1990s, and a silence for 20 years. I once heard her speak about George Eliot and she talked like she had marbles in her mouth, and was too eager to make her intellectual points — it was on one of those features on DVDs, this one Andrew Davies’s marvelous film of Middlemarch (1994). The one authorized biography by Richard Todd I have tried is discreet to the point of being useless except as the kind of traditional literary criticism which eschewed all disquieting political or autobiographical truths. I see her as a privileged person — the middle class intellectual Yorkshire home, went to the best schools, met her peers as a writer. She says she felt isolated in these places, alone, did not fit in.  I will say her sister, whom I’ve written about in my Reveries Under Austen, Margaret Drabble seems to me to have fulfilled her gifts far more steadily and fully. We are told the girls were rivals for their mother’s love and Margaret won repeatedly.

Tonight I wish I had time to try again with The Whistling Woman

In her older years

She was an extraordinarily gifted fictional writer, and for a few years produced a couple of literary masterpieces in the genre of romance fiction, and some fine works of interpretative scholarship. In the early 1990s before I got onto the Internet and was able to reach other people, she made my spirits soar with the beauty of her prose and the passion of her feminine anguish, yearning, hard experiences (these mostly in the first volume of short stories). I felt less lonely with the woman who could write Possession; she seemed to love the books I did, and she reached for an underbelly of the sexually distraught that I have known. Perhaps I should place her in the Austen Reveries blog, but I think she might have preferred this one. Seemingly impersonal. Her official website is devoid of words, offering only enigmatic book covers. Like Ellen Ashe and Christabel LeMotte from Possession, what was she unwilling to tell of. In Still Life there are so many characters phoning crisis centers but we hardly ever hear a resolution of their crises.  Its heroine also ends in stillness or death.

Ellen

The Sixth Commandment

Timothy Spall as Larry Farquhar and Anne Reid as Ann Moore-Martin

In the comments, for comparison: When Harry Met Sally! — how to be a prisoner of genre and not care, two hours of it, and while below is how to use and transcend and stay within a genre …

Dear friends and readers,

I confess I have succumbed to watching nightly different movie stories from the vast array of mystery-thriller, spy, and now “true crime” stories that fill the streaming and mainstream channels of what passes for major TV and computer entertainment fare. My excuse has been I’m studying this genre and finding it worthwhile. If needed, beyond books and essays, there are excellent documentaries on the form, among them, Andrew Marr’s, which I summarized here some years ago (!)

Well about a week ago I found myself reading my daughter’s (full disclosure) blog-review of the coming British films available on American TV and channels and was drawn to one of her colleague’s discussion of The Sixth Commandment Timothy Spall is one of the great character actors of our era (e.g., Mr Turner),and I was interested because Sarah Phelps, the script-writer is a woman who has made Agatha Christie adaptations that are much better than the original books. I’d noticed Saul Dibb as the director of fine films too. Anne Reid I first saw as the housekeeper and Sergeant George’s mother in Andrew Davies’s Bleak House; then she held her own throughout the recent Sanditon as one of Jane Austen’s harridans whom Davies gave more humane depths to.

But I was not prepared for how stunningly moving and humane this one is. As art and deeper message, this serial is about as good as any film you’ll find anywhere. Lucy Mangan (in The Guardian) replays the themes Lucy Braugher discussed (just above) for PBS, only with greater subtlety and appreciation of how this differs from most of these “true crime” stories: the emphasis is not only on the victims and their families and friends; the movie accords intense respect towards the frail elderly repressed and lonely homosexual man and the naive elderly unmarried woman attached to her niece and her dog. It takes us beyond categories many people might be likely to turn from, or ridicule: It is “harrowing” (as Mangan says) and perhaps I feel a little uncomfortable in recommending what might seem morbid or voyeuristic matter (which I have to admit seems to be part of many of the more contemporary of these violent and sometimes frightening or anxiety-producing genre shows) but here the point is to remember what these real people were. It is form of honoring them.

Eanna Hardwicke as Ben Field when taken into custody

It is also to show us what evil is, that a man (or woman) can be evil: malevolent, at core malicious, predatory, and perceptive about other people’s needs, Ben Field (Eanna Hardwicke) is also central to why this film is important: it does not psychoanalyze him into a figure we can sympathize with, but leaves us with an Iago-like character. The trial scenes are fascinating because this seeming religious man boasts about what he did to these people. Some of the reviews that have been harsh have been angry at the attention paid to this cruel man but they have misunderstood or underestimated the full purpose of the film-makers. Louisa Mellor (Den of Geek) is one of those who does justice to the terrifying Field (who wanted to humiliate and play with these people beyond killing them)

Other cast members or characters add quietly to, or thicken the terrain. Peter’s brother and sister-in-law are played by Adrian Rawlins and Amanda Root, and we watch a slow build-up of suspicion allayed, and then increasing horror and profound anger as they realize what happened to their beloved friend. Conor MacNeill, the masochistic friend or scout-stooge somehow under the power of Field, adds intense pathos but also dread. The ferocity of Ann Moore-Martin’s niece (apparently orphaned and very close to her aunt), Annabel Scholey as Anne-Marie Blake, whose marriage almost breaks up as she lashes out at everyone because of her own guilt in not rescuing her aunt in time to save her life. Possibly this shot of Rawlins and Root as ordinary people captures something of the quality sought for these surrounding characters.

There was a slow careful build-up of tension, worry that something is wrong here, and when at the close of the first episode we realize that Ben has been lying and has now gotten the property and probably murdered Ben, the second part has to draw us in in a new way: we are led to see what’s happening through Anne-Marie’s deep distrust and attempts to take action against Ben. We are upset when before she dies, Anne is so angry with herself, ashamed of how her vanity and need led her to be taken in. The third episode we are eager to see Ben arrested so are watching as the detectives in the police procedural fashion gather evidence, and finally have enough. The fourth we are on edge lest the jury decide wrongly.

I feared Ben would topple the unsure Peter — and thought to myself, he won’t for he wants the money …

Andrew Marr is determined to make a case for respecting this form of novel and film. Possibly the finest use of a film like this is it does that. Look at the stills of the two actors playing Farquhar and Moore-Martin: we have lost these precious people. All these melodramas are socially realistic stories, where writers, as Val McDermid says, are tackling “the terrible things that happen in the real world.” They lead us to address death and violence through a complex moral dimension provided by the author. The different consolation that modern detective fiction offers (as opposed to older fiction say pre-ancien regime), Marr contends, is found in the individuals willing to bring to light to stop some horrible behavior on our behalf (ultimately): the good and caring man or woman who is the detective, police officer, the lawyer who carries the weight of bad world on themselves, often at the expense of living a life of their own, or because they haven’t managed to integrate into the social history we are experiencing. Our beloved Foyle, Peter Wimsey, Jane Tennison.

This one does differ from Marr’s archetype because the detectives play a secondary role, do not emerge as individuals any more than the brilliant lawyers who expose Ben Field do. The camera, the impersonal POV replaces this individual. Ann-Marie is told at the end that it was she who started the action that eventually put Ben Field behind bars. I wonder if part of the effect of this story is dependent on their not being this reliable person who tidied everything up with ease. After all, until the last moment, detectives and lawyers were worried sick, the jury would produce a verdict of not guilty, that Field could have maneuvered them into respecting him and dismissing his victims. They find Martyn “not guilty” and surely he did know what was going on. After 19 hours the “guilty” verdict of murder for Ben Field was an intense relief to me — I did not read what had been the conclusion of the real trial. The actor looked puzzled as if he could hardly credit he was going to be punished, put away for a long time (36 years minimum).

A seeming police photo

The landscape also did not seem to figure as centrally to the effect of the story as in most. Possibly this is due to its not having been a novel, but my understanding is that Wallander (which I’ve begun to watch and both Kenneth Branagh and Tom Hiddleston have engaged me) was invented as a series of films, and surely the bleak desolate river-scape of the stories’ backdrop is as central as England’s green and pleasant land is to Foyle (in the town of Hastings by the sea) or the many places Wimsey explores (from the fens, to Yorkshire, to Scotland, to central London). But then because it seemed so ordinary it is less escapist and like Susan Hill’s Various Haunts of Men (a book that gave me anxiety nightmares about my house being on the first floor and how easy it would be to break in) I could identify all the more with Peter Farquhar and Anne Moore-Martin. I was made nervous by a gardener I hired sometime ago and was much relieved when he finally stopped coming round after I told him, no more.

It is probably paranoid to imagine Ben managed to poison poor Rosie who dies during the story and might have been hostile to such a constant visitor …

Is there anything here which I can especially put down to the program having been written by a woman? a certain sensitivity to the nuances of private domestic life? the very vulnerability of elderly people: no one here is a macho male type, young and handsome, muscled, except of course Ben. Her work includes A Very British Scandal, with its deep pity for the poignant homosexual low status man (Ben Wishaw), almost done in by the brutal MP (Hugh Grant) …

Ellen

Women in Trollope at Somerville College, Oxford, Sept 1-3; All Trollope All the Time

Anthony Trollope as painted by Samuel Lawrence, 1864 — although I have access to the image only in black-and-white, it seems to me to come closest to showing the expression on his face of the sensitive compassionate mind behind the novels. It’s my favorite.

Dear friends and readers,

Last weekend the London Trollope Society met at Somerville College, Oxford, as one of the first all women’s colleges to open her doors, an appropriate place to discuss Trollope’s valuing and esteem of women. It has had since then many women as students and faculty, who became famous, and powerful after residing here. For a separate more humanizing account (what we wore, games we played, dinners), see Adventures in Oxford and London: Meeting Friends. We spent the weekend immersing ourselves in talk about Trollope who emerged as a man much engaged by women. One of those who spoke, Deborah Denenholz Morse (Inaugural Sara E. Nance Professor of English, 2017-22, Plumeri Faculty Excellence Scholar, 2022-24), at William and Mary College, said at the conclusion of her talk (via zoom, the only one) that she was determined we should see how much Trollope valued his woman characters, respected and loved them. How he showed their inner passionate natures when confronted with a lover or husband (“Lily, Glencora, Ayala, and Isabel: Female Desire and Women’s Rights in Trollope’s Novels”). Of course (just talking of this particular presentation) that’s not the same as being for their emancipation from hundreds of years of real and metaphoric subjection, not the same as wanting women to have equal rights in politics, in the professions, as one of the authorities of the family.

And therein lies the paradox a bundle of contradictions at the center or sides of Trollope’s thinking about women. As Dinah Birch, CBE and Professor of English at Liverpool College, put it in the first talk of the first day (she introduced and framed the themes of the conference), “Trollope’s thinking about women shifted over the course of his career as he encountered views that challenged conventional models of gendered identity, and grew more sympathetic to women’s struggles with constraints that limited their options. And yet he never abandoned the traditional idea that a woman’s happiest destiny was that of wife and mother.” The title of her talk comes from a concluding chapter in Framley Personage, but may be found in variations elsewhere: “What should a woman do with her life?” I find in my notes that Prof Birch said The Bertrams was more of a tragedy than comedy and of great interest because of Caroline Waddington’s determination to be someone through her husband. She talked of other individually-minded strong women in Trollope’s novels too.

Miranda Otto as Mrs Winifred Hurtle (TWWLN, 2001, scripted Andrew Davies)

Papers about Trollope’s wavering back to conventionality, whether tongue-in-cheek or not, while he drew ever closer to “respecting, encouraging, sympathizing with women’s aspirations for a much freer public and personal life” lent themselves to theses kinds of alignments. Elizabeth Cantrell’s “Let Women Rebel: Anthony Trollope and ‘The Woman Question,'” was brilliant in bringing before us details in so many areas of life where we find his books and real life experiences middle class women directing their own lives in real life and in his fiction. Both women and men wanted a freer public life. She reminded us how many minor feminist women writers Trollope was enthusiastic about or worked with. She talked of parallels between the enslaved and married women’s position. Women similarly lacked autonomy and we watch them in the era slowly gain genuine rights, power and socialize (some) men (to support women and children) too to behave better to them.

I admit while the comparison of women with chattel slaves seems incommensurate, women’s lack of property, bodily and mobility rights before the law seems to edge her towards chattel slavery. On the one hand, the distance is immense: the enslaved person has no say over the next moment of his or her life, over his or her body, no respect as a human being. And yet “captivity” seems a familiar mode in this earlier period: so many people were indentured servants for example. We need to see women in this context of a lack of liberty for so many people at the time.

But other papers took considerably different directions. Alluding to Rebecca Traister’s marvelous book about unmarried women’s successful lives in the 20th century, All the Single Ladies: The Rise of an Independent Nation, Professors Linda McCain (Robert Kent Professor of Law at Boston University) and Alison Tait (Professor of Law and Associate Dean of faculty in the University of Richmond, Virginia) spoke from a long paper they had published in Washington Journal of Law and Policy, “Household Intimacy and being Unmarried: Family Pluralism in the Novels of Anthony Trollope,” where they describe and detail in a number of Trollope’s novels his depiction of non-marital couples and families, made up sometimes of unmarried women and men who find real satisfaction and happiness in life without marriage or children. Notable examples include Miss Baker in The Bertrams, Miss Todd and Miss Troughton in Miss Mackenzie, Mrs Prime, a widow ruling the all women household in Rachel Ray, Lily Dale preferring to set up life with her mother, and the DeGuests in Small House at Allington and Miss Thoroughbung and Dolly Gray with her father preferring life with her father to a husband (Mr Scarborough’s Family). This is not to deny the heterosexual marriage is still one of the central concerns of Trollope’s fiction, but it exists amid a variety of other satisfied life patterns. As they covered all these unmarried and variously active female characters, Trollope’s fiction took on a new dimension.

Millais’ depiction of Mary Lady Mason’s adieu to Penelope Orme

In my paper, “Trollope’s Intriguing Women and Their Friendships,’ I also pointed to repeating patterns in Trollope’s fictions which are often not paid sufficient attention to, but when studied, yield a different way of thinking about his books and his women. I suggested that we look at them from another angle than we usually do:  against the turning points in the novels which dramatize women’s relationships, from women’s various kinds of friendships to as mothers-and-daughters, and as sisters. From studying Clara Amedroz and Mrs Mary Askerton’s friendship in The Belton Estate, we begin to see how important and central a friendship may be in a woman’s life; we are also led to feel for transgressive women who are ostracized and left isolated and alone in their societies, except for the (rare but there) loyal woman friend. I looked at the turning points in the plot-structure of The Way We Live Now in the women’s decision-making with one another, and the pain of conscious justified betrayal when frenemies exclude one on grounds of self-protection (in fact just the opposition state ensues, i.e., vulnerability and eventually possibly destitution). Looked at from the angle of what one might called an embedded woman’s novel, the unabridged The Duke’s Children has a third not-so-ghostly couple, Lady Mabel Grex and her ex-lover to whom she had been engaged, and Frank Tregear, whose past together haunts the book the way Lady Glencora as absent mother haunts and shapes it. The Duke’s Children unabridged looked at this way becomes a richer and different book.

Janet Maw as Eleanor Bold wooed by Peter Blythe as Bertie Stanhope (Barchester Chronicles, 1983, scripted Alan Plater)

Some of the papers or talks did not follow any narrow trajectories. Mark Green (editor of Trollopiana who has an interest in Golden Age Detective fiction) talked about “Women and Money,” about the constraints women were subjected to when they attempted to earn or to control their own or inherited money. What could be a more central topic affecting women in Trollope and the 19th century. “The legal position of women during many of Trollope’s novels is couverture,” he said. He told us the provisions of the Married Woman’s Property Acts; for example, what was settlement. Under the pressure of these new laws, and women seeking to make them active (through lawyers — the upper middle class) economic circles eventually changed drastically. Martha Dunstable is our early (fabulously) wealthy heiress — from a version of “snake oil.” He also called attention to Eleanor Bold as wealthy widow. Prof Nicholas Shrimpton (Emeritus Fellow of Lady Margaret Hall) was interested in Trollope’s portrayal of “what constitutes good or bad female behavior” from a conventional POV (what was modesty and immodesty). Virginia Grinevitch, closely studied Griselda Grantley whose name makes it emphatic that she is to be judged (ironically) against a screen of assumptions and symbolic thinking at first taken from Chaucer’s Clerk’s tale, and then in contrast to other of Trollope’s characters (like Lucy Robarts, or Mr Harding) in seven of Trollope’s novels (where she appears).  Ginny suggested we can use Griselda Grantley as a measuring stick with Trollope more or less hostile to her as mercenary, heartless, and at the same time ironically successful in what she sets out to do and to be.

Professor Helen Small’s (editor of Journal of Victorian Culture) gave us a full exegesis, of the candid unconventional sexual content of Trollope’s two salacious (Trollope had difficulty finding any publisher) sexually unconventional short stories, “Mrs General Talboys,” who living in the Anglo demi-monde of Italy plays at committing adultery, and “A Ride Across Palestine,” an obvious homosexual-homo-erotic encounter (or Hero and Leander as in Christopher Marlowe) at length between two seeming men (one turns out to be a woman). We can connect them to the “Platforms”  or journals they appeared in — we are in “queer Trollope” ground, according to Kate Flint’s nomenclature. Trollope was making a provocative use of the printing press. A third which appeared in the London Journal, “The Parsons Daughter of Oxney Colne,” does not on the surface seem as as much about sexual ambiguity, but rather sexual availability, but there is a real if quiet life ravaged here.  Full scale human loss

Anna Carter as Lady Mabel Grex (1975 Pallisers, concluding episodes)

On the final day, when all the papers had been read aloud, and it was time for one more lunch and then adieus, those who had given papers came up in front of the room and sat in a row of chairs to answer a group of questions. Some were fun: which Trollope character would you like to spend a lot of time with? Others yet more about male-female human relationships and money and the experience of life in Trollope’s novels from the woman’s POV.

Ellen

Three Tom Jones movies: 1963, 1997, and 2023 — from one 1748 book

1963 Tom Jones: Tom (Albert Finney), Sophia (Susannah York) — Tony Richardson & Tom Osborne (see blog)

1997 Tom Jones Fielding keeping count of characters passing by every which way (John Sessions) — Simon Burke & Metin Huseyin (see blog)

2023 Tom Jones Tom (Solly McLeod) and his mother, Bridget Allworthy (Felicity Montagu) overcome as they recognize one another as mother and son — Gwyneth Hughes and Georgia Parris (blog just below)

Tom: Can a man ever be a gentleman if he doesn’t know who his father is?
Aunt Bridget: Kindness and good conduct make a true gentleman …

Dear friends and readers — and movie watchers,

I’ve been having this deeply pleasurable time watching all three Tom Jones movies in a row, then separately, and then returning to the book, which I taught at both OLLIs in 2015, and then watching them all over again. Reading Osborne’s screenplay! all of which I’ve also written many blogs about (here at Ellen and Jim, there at Austen Reveries, and one paper at academia.edu.) Not to omit a 10 page paper long ago (1966, long lost sight of) as an undergraduate on the plot-design and introductory ironic chapters!

Not to worry, this is not going to be another blow-by-blow account. Nowadays I don’t need to do that because of all the recaps on the Internet, and especially when it’s the tone and ideas/themes figured forth that matter rather than the literal happenings (though these count too). I’ve found 4 very thorough recaps for you. What these do not have and I’ve found little evidence for on popular sites is any knowledge of Henry Fielding’s book.

The points I want to make about the first two movies follow in block form; the third I expatiate a bit.

In 1963 the daring highly original independent artist, Tony Richardson, together with the playwright, John Osborne, one of those angry young men who wrote all male-centered plays, created a highly memorable striking 2 hours and 8 minutes of brilliant film making for the cinema.

Under the impression the book is this good-natured and benign comedy (however savage in action, amoral in norms, coolly detached when it comes to poetic justice), distanced by a narrator, they elected to imitate film types — so we get speeding up and antics as if this were silent film with comical silent film type music. They opted (perhaps unconsciously) to make sex a hilarious joke (this is a male film where rape is a kind of joke, as it is in Fielding’s book). Subversive mischief is the feel of the whole thing. No one even now who ever sees the film can forget the hunt (first time ever done on film), the intensely sensual eating at one another of Tom and Mrs Waters (aka Jenny Jones [Joyce Redman) thought to be his mother at that moment. Both the 1997 and 2023 serials include an imitation of both.

The terrified much put-upon Partridge (the unforgettable Jack MacGowan — the movie has a number of the Ealing comedy regulars in it) trying to hold up Tom on the road

The characters remain at a distance from us, like puppets occasionally coming alive for intensities of emotion, both joy and exhilarated varieties. The film is brought to an end suddenly by replacing the last quarter of the novel with an imitation of Gay’s Beggar’s Opera, where Tom as Macheath comes near hanging, and he and Sophia finally fall into one another arms.

Now and again Osborne’s screenplay has appercus about the action, humane nature, life that are worth a serious read and do show an understanding of Fielding’s work.

I recommend studying the published screenplay which comes with 200 stills in black-and-white picked and judiciously scattered by Robert Hughes so as to repeat something of the experience with some understanding of what this is about that you imagine you are having in the movie-theater.

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

In 1997 one of the finest of the BBC screenplay writers, Simon Burke, and the thoroughly professional director, Metin Huseyin, decided to make a paean to Fielding and his book, to truly faithfully put onto the screen a translation of as much of the book as they could, making Fielding a presence in the film as narrator, voice-over, traffic director, ironic commentator.

I find it superior to either of the other two in conveying the complex and contradictory meanings of the book. The serial is 5 hours long and so the only one which can do justice to the tangled series of diabolical conspiracies (however burlesquely done) that come near to destroying Tom for real. The mood is comical melodrama for the characters as they come and go (however Polonius like this sounds). They’ve altered the frat boy forgiven perspective of the book: this is a pro-active Sophia (Samantha Morton), accompanied by an actively involved wry Honor (Kathy Burke inimitable. risking her job to do the right thing). Sophia is an overt feminist – she will not marry Tom until he proves himself faithful for two years (and we see in the fast forward of two small children, that he was made to so wait). The film-makers bring in the original allusions more: Mrs Waters (Camille Couduri) half-naked following Tom is a leering Eurydice and he a bewildered Orpheus as in the book.

Note how different is the meeting of Tom (Max Beasley) and Partridge (Ron Cook) on the road — they hug frantically as long-lost father and son

Now the characters are allowed to come up close to us as people: they considerably softened Mr Allworthy so that Benjamin Whitlow continually shows love, forgiveness, fondness for Tom, appreciation of him until Tom is betrayed by his own over-emotionalism (we are expected to feel in the film and also the book) upon Mr Allworthy’s recovery. Mrs Bridget (Tessa Peake-Jones) is very fond of Tom throughout; she tells him it’s necessary to do more than be virtuous; one must appear so. Here the women are not slathering all over Tom. I can’t speak too highly of Frances de la Tour as Aunt Western (crazed for status, money, luxury), Lindsay Duncan as Lady Bellaston, turned into a fiendish over-sexed termagant (a Madame de Merteuil), with Peter Capaldi as stalking rapist also roused by indignation, jealousy. The ending here resembles Les Liaisons Dangereuses as they attempt to press-gang, humiliate, frame, drive Tom into murder.

They take the film’s social criticism of the society at the time seriously, have a wider range of application (like the Jacobite war), even if at the end the Team Tom has formed and saves Tom out of gratitude.  Tom quietly takes charge of himself by the end of the third episode and is saving Nancy, refusing promiscuous sex (realizing how degraded he’s become). It’s also hilariously funny as the outward antics show the good characters hysterically trying to escape the nooses the bad characters set up for them, with people jumping out of windows.  There are two spontaneous duels: Brian Blessed magnificent as Western simply shoots Fellamar – why bother with swords?

It’s a very satisfying film. Watch it over and over.

Sophia and Tom at the piano, Squire Western singing along … a joyous moment

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

And so we come to our newest entry:

Gwyneth Hughes and Georgia Parris’s iteration is outstanding for having switched the perspective to that of a woman: our narrator is now Sophia (Sophia Wilde), brought over from Jamaica as the child of an enslaved black woman Squire Western impregnated (actually named! Beneba!) because the old man, Western (Alun Armstrong become a weakly affectionate lonely man) needs an heir and some hope in the form of a next generation. She speaks in the tone of deep memory; she organizes the events in the sequence she tells them so that she has equal time.

Both Tom and Sophia are then are outcasts brought tenuously into the families now. Gwyneth Hughes wrote Miss Austen Regrets and if you follow her career has a record of turning masculinized works into women-centered ones with a genuinely female POV dominating (see my blog on her Five Days). Hughes’s Aunt Western (Shirley Henderson) says she never married and honestly doesn’t see why women should; she also hilariously and also frankly worries over the state of Sophia’s hair when her black lady’s maid, Honor, is not there to make it look polished or styled. Pearl Mackie as Honor is made to do a reprise of Kathy Burke only now the two women (Sophie and Honor) become equals and friends.

Sneaking out to go on the road after Tom and to London to find the (false) safety of Lady Bellaston (played by the enormously tall and statuesque Hannah Waddington) and “Aunt” Harriet (Tamzin Merchant who in the book is Sophia’s cousin, Tamzin Merchant) who flees Mr Fitzpatrick far less frantically than in the book where his violence is rightly taken seriously.

The new important emphasis is an increase of moral gravitas for this Tom: Solly McLeod evidences a tender gravity towards Sophia and an overt selfless kindness throughout — that is indeed what makes him a gentleman. In this film he worries about this as no Tom has before him.  Well before he has to be stopped jumping into women’s beds; he hates writing the lying letter to Lady Bellaston as “it’s ugly.” Told by Black George that George stole the 500£ Mr Allworthy (James Fleet, playing his usual self-deprecating way) meant for Tom, and that he used it to build a new house for his family, Tom says he is glad to have been of use. The actor may have been chosen because he’s taller than Waddington (so their liaison will not seem grotesque), but he is no macho male (not a body-built like Sam Heughan aka Jamie from Outlander), and worries about hurting other people’s feelings. He is not so much imprudent (the incident of the drunkenness after Mr Allworthy recovers from an illness is omitted) but rather not looking out for himself:  unsuspicious is the note hit. Partridge (Daniel Rigby) here becomes a hanger-on as he does not in the other versions (Fielding’s included) because Tom does have a mind of his own — the comedy comes from this Partridge’s yearning to return home.

Close up we see there is no harm in the Squire and his sister

The use of a female narrator and female POV just transforms it. Repeatedly events we saw from a particular’s POV or Fielding’s are now one of these women. Armstrong as Western keeps muttering about “the women in this family,” but in this film duels are seen as ridiculous things men do. When Tom is having sex with Mrs Waters at Upton, our POV is that of Sophia and Honor listening from the other side. When Fitzpatrick interrupts Tom and Mrs Waters, our POV is that of Mrs Waters ostentatiously (to us) pretending to be eager and waiting patiently for Fitzpatrick all this while. Again and again the mad-dog violent sexual predator is made to seem silly but also mortally dangerous and not to be trusted. The men are seen through immediately (that Mr Fitzpatrick has taken bribes); the women enigmatic. When Tom despairs in prison upon learning he may have fucked his mother, his words have a plangency rarely projected by men.

Sophie Wilde is of course central too; she is wise beyond her years — the black actress moves into this princess role so gracefully — in one sequence she sings a lovely 18th century sounding song. Perhaps she is too without bitter memories (Georgiana Lambe in the latest Sanditon is more realistic this way), too trusting. This film is not color blind; it means to be color conscious but they did not want to register too closely the horrors of enslavement this pastoral skirts.

Tom and Sophia dancing

All the characters want to return home, and home is not Jamaica, or a particular house, but a yearning to escape individual trouble and vexation. It is a funny at times, but in a genuinely more benevolent way than the previous. The jokes are not aggressive (Partridge echoes Pistol from Shakespeare: “Speak or die!”), no one mocks anyone but Bellaston, Fellamar (Tom Durrand Pritchard) and the gloating spiteful Blifil (James Wilbraham) whom poetic justice leaves with in the city (at a gothic like door) with the cold ambitious Lady Bellaston.

They are for the countryside, anti-artifice, and this links the film back to the 2007 Mansfield Park by Maggie Waddie — the ending of both is closely similar. A picnic wedding with a beautiful dance between our hero and heroine and then circle dancing of all as they look forward to peaceful future in this haven of Paradise Hall where once Blifil is ejected (presented as twisted by his envy and jealousy over everyone’s deep love for Tom, but especially his mother) all are safe, stable, contented. We are told Mrs Waters (Susannah Fielding) and Mrs Fitzgerald got on quite well together and never missed Mr F with his crazed sexual predation and violent turn for duels. Honor marries a black inn-keeper and becomes a pub-landlady nearby.

I admit this is not a film where returning to Fielding’s book will do you much good if you want to deepen your understanding of what has given rise to the film. This anti-competitive theme is not taken from Fielding’s book but is a reaction to our world today. No one wants to hustle for gigs. The palette of the movie is pastoral repeatedly — mostly rich autumn colors. Frances Grey as Mrs Miller would not be out of place in the BBC Cranford.

James Fleet as Squire Allworthy sheltering under a tree in the landscape

Ellen

Summer syllabus, OLLI at AU: The Heroine’s Journey

Catherine Morland (Felicity Jones) and Henry Tilney (J.J. Feilds) entering the realm of the ancient Abbey, crossing the bridge (2007 Granada/WBGH Northanger Abbey, scripted Andrew Davies)

For a course at the Oscher LifeLong Learning Institute at American University
Day: 4 Tuesday mornings, 9-45-11:15 am online,
Study Group 1620: The Heroine’s Journey
Office located at 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20016
Dr Ellen Moody

Description of Course:

We will explore the archetypal heroine’s journey across genres and centuries in the western Eurocentric tradition, from classical times to our 21st century female detectives. Our foundational books will be Maria Tatar’s The Heroine with 1001 Faces (written as a counterpart to Joseph Campbell’s famous and influential The Hero with a Thousand Faces), and Maureen Murdock’s The Heroine’s Journey (click to reach the whole text online for free). Our four books will be Margaret Atwood’s Penelopiad, Angela Carter’s The Bloody Chamber and Other Tales; Elena Ferrante’s Lost Daughter; and Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey. We will discuss what are journeys, the central experiences, typical plot-designs, characterizations, and events of the lives of our heroines of classical myth, fairy & folk tales (and connected to this historical romance and time-traveling tales), realistic fiction, and the gothic (and connected to this mystery/thrillers, detective stories). There are two recommended films as part of our terrain to be discussed: Outlander, S1E1 (Caitriona Balfe as Claire Beauchamp transported), and Prime Suspect S1E1 (Helen Mirren as Jane Tennison). I will supply some poetry (Atwood, Carol Ann Duffy, Marge Piercy), two scripts (for the serial episode of Outlander and the 2022 film adaptation of The Lost Daughter by Maggie Gyllenhaal), and one parodic modern short story (“Rape Fantasies” by Atwood), all as attachments.

Leda (Olivia Colman) stopping off to look at the sea sometime during her journey there and back (Lost Daughter, 2021)

Required Books (these are the editions I will be using but the class members may choose any edition they want):

Margaret Atwood. The Penelopiad. NY: Grove Press (originally O. W. Toad), 2005, ISBN 978-1-84195-798-2
Angela Carter. The Bloody Chamber and Other Adult Tales. NY: Harper and Row, 1981. ISBN 0-06-090836X (reprinted with new codes many times)
Elena Ferrante. The Lost Daughter, trans. Ann Goldstein. NY: Europa, 2008.
Jane Austen. Northanger Abbey, ed. Susan Fraiman. NY: Norton Critical Edition, 2004. ISBN 978-0-393-097850-6. Another excellent (good introduction, good materials at the back of the book) modern edition is the Longman Cultural text, ed. Marilyn Gaull. NY: Longman (Pearson Educational), 2005. ISBN 0-321-20208-2

Strongly suggested films:

Outlander, Season 1, Episode 1, called “Sassenach” Written Roger Moore, directed John Dahl. Featuring: Caitronia Balfe, Sam Heughan, and Tobias Menzies. Available on Netflix (and Starz), also as a DVD. I can supply a script for this one.
Prime Suspect, Season 1, Episode 1, called “Price to Pay 1 & 2.” Written Lynda La Plante, Directed Christoper Menaul. Featuring Helen Mirren, John Benfield, Tom Bell. Available on BritBox, YouTube and also as a DVD

Kauffmann, Angelica, Penelope Taking Down the Bow of Ulysses (18th century)

Format: The class will be a mix of informal lecture and group discussion

June 6th: Introduction, Atwood’s Penelopiad, with a few of her Circe poems, and Carol Ann Duffy’s “The Big O” (from The World’s Wife)

June 13th: From Carter’s The Bloody Chamber and Other Adult Tales read “The Bloody Chamber” (Bluebeard), “The Courtship of Mr Lyon,” (Beauty and the Beast)”Puss-in-Boots,” “The Lady of the House of Love” (Sleeping Beauty plus), “The Company of Wolves” (Little Red Riding Hood). Please have seen Outlander S1, E1. Another movie you could see is the 1984 Company of Wolves, an extravagant fantasy bringing together a number of Carter’s fairy tales and fables; she is one of the scriptwriters. It’s available on Amazon Prime.

June 20th: Ferrante’s The Lost Daughter, with Marge Piercy’s “Morning Athletes” If you are interested, see the film adaptation, The Lost Daughter, scripted & directed Maggie Gryllenhaal; while much is changed, it is absorbing and explains the book (Netflix film, also available as a DVD to buy); it features Olivia Colman, Jessie Buckley, Dakota Johnson, and Jack Farthing (as Leda’s husband). I can supply a script for this one too.

June 27th: Austen’s Northanger Abbey, with discussion that links the gothic to modern mystery-thriller and detective stories. I will send by attachment Margaret Atwood’s “Rape Fantasies” (a very short story). Please have seen Prime Suspect S1, E1-2. If you are interested, see the film adaptation, Northanger Abbey, scripted Andrew Davies, directed by Jon Jones; while much is changed, this one is also absorbing and adds to the book (available as a YouTube and DVD); it features beyond the two principals, Carey Mulligan, Liam Cunningham (General Tilney) and Sylvestre Le Touzel (Mrs Allen)

First still of Helen Mirren as Jane Tennison, late arrival at crime scene, driving herself (Prime Suspect, aired 6 & 9 April 1991, “Price to Pay”)

Select bibliography (beyond Tatar’s Heroine with a 1001 Faces and Murdock’s Heroine’s Journey):

Atwood, Margaret. Recommended novels, non-fiction and poetry by her: The Edible Woman, Surfacing, Handmaid’s Tale, Cat’s Eye, Lady Oracle, The Blind Assassin; Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature, Women and the city: Essays in Feminist Literary Criticism; The Journals of Susannah Moody … various editions.
Beard, Mary. Confronting the Classics: Traditions, Adventures and Innovations. Liveright, 2013. Early refreshingly jargon-free feminist readings of documents left to us.
Bojar, Karen. In Search of Elena Ferrante: The Novels and the Question of Authorship. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2018.
Carter, Angela. Shaking a Leg: Collected Writings [non-fiction, essays, sketches, journalism], ed Jenny Uglow, introd. Joan Smith. NY: Penguin, 1998; The Sadeian Woman and the Ideology of Pornography. Penguin, 1979.
Choderow, Nancy. The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley: Univ of California Pr, 1978
Cavender, Gray and Nancy C. Jurik, Justice Provocateur: Jane Tennison and Policing in Prime Suspect. Urbana: Univ of Illinois Press, 2012.
Cooke, Nathalie. Margaret Atwood: A Critical Companion. Westport, Conn: Greenwood, 2004.
Finley, M. I. (Sir Moses). The World of Odysseus (a central lucid informative classic study of the Homeric epics) Penguin, 1956. Also Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology (the ancient world was a slave and captivity society); Early Greece: The Bronze and Archaic Ages (straight history and archaeology) and Ancient History: Evidence and Models (teaches you how to think about what is evidence, and what you can do with this evidence).
Frankel, Valier Estelle. 3 books: Symbolism & Sources of Outlander: Adoring Outlander: On Fandom, Genre, and Female Audience; Outlander’s Sassenachs: Gender, Race, Orientation, and the Other in the TV series. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2015-17 (also on later books, Duane Meyer, The Highland Scots of North Carolina, 1732-1776. Chapel Hill: Univ of North Carolina, 1961.)
Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. 1983; rep, rev Harvard UP, 1993.
Gordon, Edmund. The Invention of Angela Carter: A Biography. London: Chatto & Windus, 2016.
Hirsh, Marianne. The Mother-Daughter Plot: Narrative, Psychoanalysis, Feminism. Indiana: Bloomington UP, 1980
Klein, Kathleen Gregory. The Woman Detective: Gender and Genre. 2nd Edition. Chicago: Univ of Illinois, 1995.
Moody, Ellen, “People that marry can never part: A Reading of Northanger Abbey, Persuasions Online, 3:1 (Winter 2010): https://jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol31no1/moody.html ; The Gothic Northanger: A Psyche Paradigm, Paper delivered at a EC/ASECS conference, November 8, 2008 online: http://www.jimandellen.org/austen/gothicna.html ; The Three Northanger Films [includes Ruby in Paradise], Jane Austen’s World (Vic Sandborn, April 6, 2008: online: https://janeaustensworld.com/2008/04/06/the-three-northanger-abbey-films/
Pratt, Annis. Archetypal Patterns in Women’s Fiction. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1981.
Southam, B.C., ed. Northanger Abbey and Persuasion: A Casebook. London: Routledge, 1968.
Stevenson, Anne. “Diana Gabaldon: her novels flout convention.” Publishers Weekly 6 Jan. 1997: 50+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 15 Apr. 2016. Online.
Sullivan, Rosemary. The Red Shoes: Margaret Atwood, Starting Out. Canada: Harper Flamingo, 1998.
Tomalin, Clair. Jane Austen: A Life. NY: Vintage, 1997.
Williams, Anne. The Art of Darkness: A Poetics of Gothic. Chicago: Univ Chicago P, 1995.

Claire (Caitronia Balfe) among the stones, just arrived in 1743 (Outlander S1, E1, 2015)

Guiseppe di Lampedusa’s Il Gattopardo (The Leopard): a gem of a historical novel & film

Burt Lancaster as Don Fabrizio Corbera, Prince of Salina (from Il Gattopardo, Lucino Visconti, 1963)

Dear friends and readers,

This book represents a complete turnabout for me, and twice: I started the term regretting that I had chosen this book as not having enough story to it, as too reactionary, maybe static, and, before it was time to discuss it with the class, I fell in love with it as quietly subtly intensely active (though the most overt actions, the battles are off-stage), profound in its understanding of how politics works, encompassing in an epitomizing way of the history and culture of history from well before to well after the Risorgimento, but centering on one of its central phases, Garibaldi’s invasion of Sicily. I had partly been influenced by my first watching of the film in the American version (cut down, and dubbed by others, except for Lancaster’s voice, which was his own), which on first blush (I now think I was so tired), I found so flat and stilted; but again, before it was time to discuss the film with the class, I had watched the whole of the Italian version (with all speaking Italian except Lancaster, and here he was dubbed), 3 hours and 40 minutes and was mesmerized, deeply affected. In fact I watched it twice, and then four different features about it, Visconti, Lancaster, the book.

Lampedusa was a great poet whose work emerges from a kind of exile imposed on himself; his novel as great historical novel which while presenting a version of the Risorgimento which many would say is wholly inadequate and reactionary, nonetheless stands up to scrutiny because of the scepticism and irony with which just about everything is viewed, the main character’s real intelligence and insight into everyone he meets, and his essential kindly humanity. It is often not mentioned that he fought in World War Two; he did live a life apart immersed in literary and art study, but he also experienced much of life — like Italo Calvino’s nun who goes nowhere. He presided over the decay and loss of his family estate, watched the world lurch through changes from the opening of the century to a decade after World War Two.

It is partly an autobiographical book because the prince is based on Lampedusa’s real great-grandfather, a learned, solitary (despite being surrounded by people), non-professional scientist when there was no such thing as a scientific profession and a rentier; he devoted himself to astronomy. Fabrizio is the book as he is the movie: his quiet, melancholic, ironic self fills its spaces; fundamentally he’s alienated from his society while belonging utterly to it – he belongs nowhere and is at its core. He lives just outside the rough and tumble of the world while being intensely aware of how it works. The prince’s nephew, Tancredi, is partly based on Lampedusa’s own nephew (minus the cold callowness) — his nephew has today turned one of the castles in the book into a tourist house, set in a beautiful landscape.

What we see in our book is a specific phase of the risorgimento: how it was experienced in the early 1860s and at and around Palermo. The book opens with our characters being told of the military come, Garibaldi at the head winning again and again, everywhere, sometimes fighting fiercely, others being welcomed in a celebratory spirit (Naples). Garibaldi is the great absent-presence of this book. He is never on stage but we hear about him all the time – Scott is a lot kinder and brings his world historical characters on stage, but Scott is not such a conservative as Lampedusa who didn’t want to dramatize Garibaldi as his presence would have contradicted the prince’s idea that all revolutions do is replace an old corrupt order with a new one.

I find the wikipedia article provides an excellent synopsis and phase-by-phase plot-summary. This is well put:

The novel is the story of Don Fabrizio Corbera, Prince of Salina,[3] a 19th-century Sicilian nobleman caught in the midst of civil war and revolution. As a result of political upheaval, the prince’s position in the island’s class system is eroded by newly-moneyed peasants and “shabby minor gentry.” As the novel progresses, the Prince is forced to choose between upholding the continuity of upper class values, and breaking tradition to secure the continuity of his family’s influence. A central theme of the story is the struggle between mortality and decay (death, fading of beauty, fading of memories, change of political system, false relics, etc.), and abstraction and eternity (the prince’s love for the stars, continuity and the resilience of the Sicilian people). In a letter to a friend, the author notes: “Be careful: the dog Bendicò is a very important character and is almost the key to the novel”. This heraldic emblem is the key to destruction, in the sense that ruin comes even to the dog.”

Jeffrey Meyers’s literary close reading in the Italian Quarterly is also suggestive: The Leopard is a richly symbolic novel from the first scene during the Rosary to the final moment when the carcass of Bendicò is flung out the window. The symbols form two categories: there are those which emerge and disappear only to be found later in a somewhat varied form, like a pattern of dolphins leaping through the sea. These may be called recurrent symbols, which only grow to their fullest meaning toward the end of the book, and through their very expansion advance the theme of the novel. Through repetition and variation they function also as leitmotifs and thereby effect a structural unity. The eviscerated soldier, the stars, Sicily itself, and Bendicò are recurrent symbols, woven like threads into the fabric and texture of Lampedusa’s art.

The second mode of symbols are used more conventionally; they occur and evoke a higher meaning only once. But these static
symbols often appear in an expanded moment which allows their meanings to reverberate through the novel and foreshadow the future. Prophecy is used structurally to link the present with the future and to give an air of predestined inevitability to important actions. The most successful symbols in this group are the series of objets d’art which illustrate and prophesy the love of Tancredi and Angelica….”

I love the houses, the wandering through the rooms of Tancredi and Angelica, how they get lost in the palace at Donnafugato, the highly ironic and despairing political scenes  — even if the mayor wins he lies about the count so that it should be unanimous; the cry of anguish of the progressive man that the prince will do nothing for the immiserated poor; then the luxury and delicacy of the ball itself, finally how gently the prince died — how he wanted to go. The gentle comedy.

I leave my reader to peruse the rest of these wikipedia articles (above, below, one on Lampedusa), and find and read the articles I cited in the comments

Lampedusa was motivated finally to write the book towards the very end of his life when he went to a literary fair and conference for the first time in many years and thought to himself I can do as well as these people – and of course felt he was coming to the end of his life – he was no longer well. He drove himself to finish it, and when he died, it had been rejected by a couple of the major Italian publishers. It’s sad to know he never knew of its publication nor the several short stories he wrote around the same time and readied for publication.

The initial reception was very mixed – to say the least. It was rejected and not until Eugenio Montale, a major poet, and Giorgio Bassani championed it, did it see the light of day as a book. Bassanio was not socialist and at one time was a fascist – so it was a political time-bomb. What happened was it sold phenomenally well. You can think of it as the Downton Abbey of its day.

Very slowly since it has gained much respect as a poetic masterpiece, psychological study of a particular kind of man at place in time, as a historical novel set in 1860 in Palermo where all around the main action slaughters are going on, and fierce politics – overheard by our prince and brought as news by his nephew, Tancredi, and experienced as a plebiscite where there seem to be (astonishing) no contrary votes.

In a kind of touristy essay – by a man who visited the cemetery in Palermo where the Lampedusa family is buried after he had read the novel many years before and once again – Richard O’Mara remarks that the Mayor we meet, Calogero, as the prince half-predicts, did found a Mafioso organization which still exists because when the Americans came in with their ambiguous Marshall Plan, they handed out a number of central positions to Mafioso agents.

The famous highpoint of the ball: the prince dances with his coming daughter-in-law

The film too did not initially get the respect it should have — because it’s a costume drama, and had star types at the center. But the sheer popularity of it won out. As with Hollywood movies when it comes time to give out prizes, they shower second-rate movies that were phenomenal successes at the box office, but later as the movie shows sustaining power, gains an audience, the film critics who count look again — or look louder. Over the years, this long unusual film for its time, Il Gattopardo, been studied and found to be immensely rich in dialogues, events, details, cinematography, and depth of emotion. It is also gently funny: the specifics of many of the characters make us laugh while we feel for them. It was filmed entirely on location, and use was made of real buildings, real churches, the Sicilian landscape, monuments, sky.

Again wikipedia did real justice to it. Here are some of my notes:

I was fully involved and discovered the movie to be (for 2 hours and 40 minutes) mostly a light comedy with melancholy undertones, with a simple story, focusing on the central male, the Prince played by Lancaster. He dominates the film and carries it — not an easy thing to do

Lancaster delivers a remarkable performance. The second star cast was Alan Delon and he speaks French so in neither version can you hear him. The one street battle scene (Garibaldi invades Sicily) is very well done, but at a distance and not long enough for the burden of meaning it’s asked to bear. The outlook is very anti-risorgimento with the political idea that the peasant world does not want to change; since we hardly see any we are not in a position to judge. The other idea that you have to permit change in order to keep things the same is acted out in an election presented in the film as useless. The class snobbery as in the book is not contradicted; there is no downstairs.

The scenes between the prince and a sort of hunting comrade and the middle mayor whose daughter, Angelica (Claudia Cardinale) the Prince’s nephew marries are among the best for understanding the characters and Visconti’s outlook (an aristocrat himself albeit a man of the left).

Beyond that the filming of the places is remarkable and the last quarter the film devoted to a ball whose different phases have different symbolic resonances — it reminded me very much of the balls in Margaret Mitchell’s Gone With the Wind — we do glimpse that the nephew’s marriage is one of convenience, but as the inner life of his coming wife is downplayed and one of calculation — we don’t feel grief.

I like this comment about the ending of both book and film by Randy Boyagoda:

The novel’s appeal could be attributed to its beautiful prose (obvious even in translation), to its languid pacing, and to how it unfolds the many layers of intrigue and fidelity within a family and between a family and the people around them. But it’s this moment–the beginning of the Prince’s decline, and its rationales and causes–that makes The Leopard more than just another underappreciated classic. It’s this moment that makes it speak to the kinds of concerns we each have to deal with these days in our personal, professional, and faith lives … There is far more at play in the Prince’s Donnafugata dilemma than obvious irony and poetic social justice. Taken in the context of the whole novel, it is a superb evocation of what it means to be a serious person out of step with one’s time … What matters in each of these situations is accepting that you need to act for the greater good while also accepting the permanent possibility of a Pyrrhic victory

The last glimpse of Fabrizio as he walks home in the dark

Ellen

Trollope’s The Warden at the Trollope London Society’s Online Group reads

Donald Pleasance as Mr Harding playing his cello (1983 Barchester Chronicles, scripted Alan Plater

Dear friends and readers,

Yesterday’s session on Trollope’s The Warden via the online Trollope London Society reading group, was particularly good. The talk was that pleasurable and informative I think I’ll re-watch — Eric Williams, the man’s name, a retired teacher, projected the warm feeling and picturesqueness of The Warden one comes away with. New people were there, 112 altogether for the session. This testifies to the popularity of this novella among Trollopeans. We’re having an extra session this coming Monday — Trollope’s birthday “party” Dominic called it.

Eric Williams’s talk brought out the central elements Nicholas Shrimpton’s introduction in the new World Classics Oxford paperback covers thoroughly in The Warden — the way the text is made up of layers of different kinds of discourses, and that some of these are realistic enough characters in a domestic story (indepth meditations within characters), but others are satiric (using caricature), allusive (literary references as well as political ones to the real world of England at the time, especially church and presspolitics, and the Crimean war), burlesque (mock-heroic language and the kind of roman a clef feel of the supposed three boys of the Archdeacon who are not boys at all but over-the-top depictions of specific church and politicians at the time). The card game at Eleanor’s party had a few paragraphs very like Pope’s Rape of the Lock where what’s happening in the cards becomes a felt event as if the cards were active beings. So Trollope is going through different layers of reality. This is apparently what Shrimpton was referring to when he called it an experimental novel.

Nigel Hawthorne as Archdeacon Grantly in debate with Mr Harding

The question is, Does it work altogether? or do sometimes the different elements jar?

Catherine Morland’s journey to the abbey, driven and teased by Henry Tilney (2007 Granada NA, scripted Andrew Davies)

This calls to my mind the problem for some people reading Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey: on one level a young girl enters the world aka “le monde” (a 18th century trope); on another we have a gothic parody with the central female character, Catherine, a naif (a character as a satiric device). So does Catherine quite make sense? perhaps in NA too much is caught up in the central figure while in The Warden these different and contradictory kinds of things are diffused across the work? Yet in the later part of The Warden, there is an argument that Trollope’s satiric parody of Dickens’s sentimental radical protest novels go too far: for example, is does the hilarity of the absurdly exaggerated The Almshouse mirror too strongly and remain uncomfortably close to the novel we are reading called The Warden. Does suspension of disbelief break down?

I now say no.  That we must dismiss realism from our minds and Trollope’s style enables us to do this.

Since I’ve been reading and watching Agatha Christie’s stories (as books, as films) one of the central textural elements that makes The Warden a great work and Agatha Christie’s stories not is that the idyll in Christie is set apart; there is no world outside her villages (at least those I’ve read and seen thus far),and the village itself is presented in ways stripped of power structures.  In Trollope’s novella the story and idyllic surroundings are precisely embedded in the real outside world whose power structures are made transparent.  Consider the role of the train and London on the map in The Warden … So this layering and movement between types of characters is part of what made it a bud from which the whole series of the Barchester books could grow

Mr Harding wandering in the cathedral in the famous chapter, “A Long Day in London”, as he waits to see Sir Abraham Haphazard.

I feel I should add that insightful and informative comments were made after the talk. Only the talks are recorded; to encourage more participation and freedom of expressions conversations afterwards are not recorded, but sometimes add greatly to the experience. So one participant pointed out that although Trollope himself — or his narrator — seems to lean on the idea that John Bold’s intervention accomplished nothing much, and put at risk what the old men had (this is Archdeacon Grantly’s view); nevertheless a number of these egregious unfair distributions of inherited wealth in the church were re-arranged, or put a stop to, and there were genuine reforms. So a book like The Warden beyond being an unacknowledged Condition of England novel, also perhaps provided a spur to do some good. “You have to start somewhere.” I add that reform often comes top down, that is change is made in who holds onto the power by those in power and this too can bring improvement in people’s lives.

The wonderfulness of Alan Plater’s Barchester Chronicles, the 1983 7 part serial was brought up too — how beautifully it’s acted and how faithful it seems. How funny at times. The music and setting. For myself beyond Donald Pleasance, I just love Barbara Flynn as the plain spoken sensible Mary Bold.

Ellen

DC Spring theater: an uneven King Lear; a downright dismaying Anne Karenina

The ensemble for King Lear: Patrick Paige as Lear, Michael Milligan as fool, Shirine Babb as Kent, Matthew J Harris as Edgar

The director and a few of the actors know the deep pessimism and agony of what humanity is, is the core of the play, that it is utterly serious, but the actors have been encouraged to demean and undermine it with coarse humor, and project its impact through the techniques of action-adventure noise & (for the women) sexy costumes

Amanda Assucena as Anna, José Pablo Castro Cuevas as Vronsky

So to sum up, this is a ballet which fails to tell in the most primitive terms the story of the book, caricatures the depths of the characters, leaves out much that counts that could have been used for dance, and emphatically ends on the worst of morals.

Dear friends and readers,

Nonetheless, far be it from me to suggest you should not rush out and see the King Lear (Peter Marks who never does stint praise) being performed at the Klein Theater in DC this spring: after 3 hours of it you will be moved, shaken, at times unbearably rivetted (when the Cornwall and Regan pluck out the eyes of Gloucester there is no flinching). Page has such a resonant voice and thoughtful dignified as well as raging compassionate presence, he probably matches any other performer I’ve seen (that includes Ian McKellen, 2018, and Anthony Hopkins, 2016, the fool played by the inimitable Karl Johnson).

As to the Joffrey’s Anna Karenina, the long central dance sequences of Anna and Vronsky finally making love, of upon marriage and exile from society, him becoming irritated and disdainful, and a later time of ecstasy after a vilifying social experience, a threesome of the two with Edson Barbosa as a raging Karenin probably go as far as dance without moving into pornography and violence can, to figuring the emotions of such encounters. But denuded as it is of everything else in the novel, I do advise rather taking in one of the excellent film adaptations, listening to the book read aloud, or, if all else fails, read the magnificently plausible book.

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

I’ve put off writing about the first experience (I saw the Lear two weeks ago now) because I was unwilling to counter the ecstatic screams of praise I’ve seen nearly everywhere on King Lear as it seemed uncharitable. I was aware while watching this (often very young) company how hard they were working. They seemed driven to somehow affect the audience to some overt reaction, and when the three actresses playing Goneril, Regan and even Cordelia, became vulgarly raunchy, with coarse gesturing towards sex, I put it down to eagerness to believe that Shakespeare was not some “solemn dude” Other reductive gleefulness jarred but I do know that there are places where Shakespeare’s King Lear creaks — the opening triadic ritual, Edmund’s awkward self-congratulations, the chronicle-like war scenes near the close are felt and maybe it is salutary for glamorous mystification of audiences to come to an end. But now I know a number of the actors came from a training school or program run by the Shakespeare theater: the company was saving money by not hiring seasoned professionals.

So it is a simply highly uneven production. Patrick Paige is just superb in every way; he has all the nuanced feeling and depth of thought and anger and pathos one looks for and he carried the show. What a resonant voice he has. The actors playing Gloucester (Craig Wallace) , Edgar and Kent were best after him. Edmund (Julian Elijah Martinez) has some quiet sarcastic turns. Most of the others were either adequate or not at all. All three actresses (four by the end) playing the three daughters were either overdone or wooden (let me spare their names). Oftentimes the ensemble was just too noisy, or loud when they mean to be rousing.

Visual motifs that will stay with me: Lear and the fool behind him with a woolen hat and two battered suitcases — this recalled the Lear with Anthony Hopkins with him and the actor playing the fool walking about with a shopping cart and their things in it. The sets were at times inspired and the hard action, and wildness was done well. I’d say see it and get what you can; they work hard and mean well — the deepest feeling came out of the sequences on the heath, the abysmal poverty of the shack they find themselves in. It was terrifying the scene where Gloucester’s eyes are plucked out – done with driving flair; the whole audience was shuddering — a sense of how frequent in our world is torture. A couple of satiric lines over politicians seemed apt for today. A new inspiration was the quiet death of the fool. Hitherto the fool just vanishes in the text and all productions I’ve seen; in this one he dies of cold, and exhaustion and is covered by a tent blanket.

Near the denouement

The very ending scene of most Lears is what we are all waiting for. Page chose to speak the final famous lines over Cordelia’s body so quietly.

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

Opening screen and set; intermission showed screen of snowing…

The Joffrey Anna Karenina is another matter. The reviews tell us to go because it’s such a prestigious company; it’s beyond me how the quality of the dancing is something apart from what is represented (we are told to refresh ourselves so as to understand what is faintly represented); and then there’s how these things are done. The point here is to explain what these reviews are avoiding saying.

I have now read Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina three times (in two different recent and good translations) and listened to it read aloud superbly well by Davina Porter. I’ve watched at least seven different adaptations. I am aware of just how punitively Tolstoy regards Anna’s behavior, how much the book presents a patriarchal perspective, how it glorifies the holding to conventions (the Levin and Kitty story) and finally slides over the misery of Anna’s sister-in-law, Dolly, at the hands of Anna’s brother, Stiva (played most effectively by Matthew McFayden, 2012) and in Tom Stoppard’s script (2012) But it also shows how ambiguous and distancing is Anna’s relationship with her husband, how needlessly cruel Karenin is over the child, how impossible it is to live apart from a community who will not accept but deride you.

To even begin to get the meaning of this novel, one must have all three couples, and present them in equally understanding ways, which is what Tolstoy did. This Anna Karenina just about omitted the Stiva-Dolly story, and presents the Levin-Kitty story as if there were no downside (and there is in the novel). The Anna dancing scenes presented her too consistently and especially towards the end as simply a victim. Deprived of her son, she is available for kicking. We see her become a drug addict — so the pity that she is ostracized from company is lost. The company chose to have Anna’s death a horror gothic scene, and then turn to a complete joyous ensemble surrounding Kitty and Levin that was like something taken out of Oklahoma, with no sense of humor or boisterousness.

This comes early on; there is no period of doubt where Kitty is attracted to other men

I suppose the worst lack was the omission of the early scenes of Kitty and Levin’s romance take place on an ice-skating pond. I really (perhaps naively) expected some thrilling ballet over ice — or pretend ice. Just about every movie I’ve seen includes these scenes.

They did need to use pantomime for without it there was no understanding why Dolly looked so glum and Stiva useless, helpless. But I read the company is above that sort of thing. The first we saw her son was the scene where Karenin takes the child from her.

There was an effective moment with Anna seen on one side of the stage (in her slip) and Vronsky painting her on the other. They opened on the train station and Anna’s arrival, but her meeting with Vronsky over-rode anything we might learn of Stiva or Anna’s husband. In the closing her image was presented large with the doctor injecting her with some drug over the railway set. She looked ghastly all right. Then we saw her body naked made large on the screen. Maybe spare yourself.

Almost all the reviews show this scene of Karenin presenting Vronsky with Anna

I don’t say this company didn’t work hard and probably the dancing was superbly well done. But long live patriarchy silently screams this ballet. Watch out if you trespass. I went with a friend and we were moved to discuss how in the last couple of years women have lost such ground in the US, not to omit Islamic nations around the world. No woman in the US today should get pregnant: it is too dangerous for her. She said shows how the #MeToo movement is struggling to survive.

Nicola Paggett in the 1977 movie as she walks into the snowy world towards the end of the film; Stuart Wilson was Vronsky; Eric Porter as Karenin. This BBC production remains the best adaptation of Anna Karenina in English; it shows real understanding of the center people.

The Kennedy Center appears to be returning to what it all too often did before the pandemic: get in shows from elsewhere and rely on the glamor of names to pull audiences in.

Ellen

All Creatures Great and Small: Season 3: new levels of grief and comfort and muted gaiety

A photo of Anna Madeley as Mrs Hall and Ella Bernstein as Eva Feldman, an evacuated Jewish child — done so as to evoke 1940s photos

“Snuggling down in the Yorkshire Dales to save a few cows turned out to be just what the doctor ordered last winter…” (Anibundel of the first season playing providentially almost just as the pandemic hit)

Dear friends and readers,

This is my third season watching this latest and 3rd iteration of James Herriot’s series of books, All Creatures Great and Small, and, as was to be expected, the matter has taken further turns away from the book. I find not totally to my surprise that I never posted on the first season, only its Christmas special albeit in the context of the series, the original movie and Herriot’s books. I also never posted on the second season as a whole, only giving it honorable mention as among a series of fine women’s films for 2022. This third season I’ve gotten to the point that I watch it as appointment TV, Sunday nights at 9 EST, and then re-watch it on the computer (WETA passport) so as to understand anything I misunderstood and savor it! Indeed, I keep up with Samuel West on twitter about the series, and was glad/relieved to be re-assured it will be back for a fourth season, one which incorporates the realities of World War Two as sifted through its comfort-show lens.

Opening paratexts — not as witty and varied as those of the Durrells but the same sort of entrance gate …

I feel I should say something in praise of it, yet am held back (as I was in previous years) by my sense of its shamelessly softened realities that intellectually I do not fall for, but emotionally cannot resist. The promotional photo put out by the series after the airing of the Christmas special embodies the formula: they offer suggestions of in-depth trauma controlled and distanced by the story and characters’ good natures so as to push the watcher into near tears as we actually watch everything turning out well after all. Anibundel calls it pastoral perfection. Sometimes they can overdo it and in the third season there was more evidence of this, as for example, when they were paradoxically insensitive as they tried to appeal to too many contradictory cultural impulses as in the use of a Jewish evacuated child also to stand in for a Christian child opening her magical presents on Christmas day surrounded by patiently pretending adults. Most of the time they have tact and quick pace enough not to insist on an over-motivated improbable anxiety by Nicholas Ralph as Herriot (still ostensibly the central hero) when confronted by a bullying authority figure; Callum Woodhouse as the boyish Tristan pulls this off much better since at the same time Woodhouse has a presence which remains wryly humorous.

An adequate detailed summary with useful links

Caring care

For me what stabilizes the mix are the many tales of suffering animals, some of whom die despite what is depicted realistically as veterinary care. I can believe in these skeins and cry over people upset because their pets (in effect) need rescue. I must not be the only watcher for whom Mrs Hall is turning out to be as central a character as Siegfried Farnon (seen more fully as a hurt sensitive man by Samuel West previously played somewhat similarly by Anthony Hopkins). They are our caring parent presences. The women remain in their traditional subordinate roles, supportive of their men, while strong in their own right; class status remains respected, ethnicity (British Indians are now added to the black farmers, assistants and one wife we’ve seen).

Siegfried and Mrs Hall dealing with a problem cooperatively

Her finest moment, Episode 4: the reunion with Frederick

I admit up-front last night’s ACGS was over-the-top in two ways and in the third parallel story overdid it (egged the compound so we would understand the theme), yet it touched me intensely, I was in a state of anxiety waiting with Mrs Hall, worried Edward would not come (and when Mrs H returns home and sits down with Siegfried the first question he asks is, “Did he come?”), then I did feel bad for her at his awkwardness, but glad he brought out his accusations. To tell the truth, I’m with him; at the last moment as they walk along towards the train she blurts out “I panicked” — that’s about it. When she discovered he was stealing, she became frightened she’d be blamed, and she needed a place to live, a job. She thinks she loves him above all, but unlike  a parallel Dickens’s text where we are to accept at surface value what Mrs Rouncewell (Bleak House, who also gave up a beloved son to fit into the hierarchical society) says (Mrs R does not say she loves George above everything), there is enough there to show us the son is partly correct in his assessment of Mrs H’s loyalties. She put him in jail. The second story of the weeping older man with his dog who is all the man has in the world did make me cry — alleviated by the comedy (if you can call it that, it was strained) of Siegfried “training” another boy. It was really too much to have Rachel’s younger sister (I think of her as Rachel not Helen) leave school so we could see Rachel show how loyal she is to the child herself — again undercut somewhat by an awareness this is not the best decision — or only if the girl genuinely wants to stay in this small world, which has been made idyllic and which Herriot has chosen when an adult and after a superior education.

His most moving, Episode Episode 3: the backstory killing of all the horses in WW1 still in Siegfried’s mind, told very well by Judith Cheney, a member of Trollope & his Contemporaries @ groups.io

“Siegfried in a flashback memory of the end of WW1, Siegfried was ordered to put down all of the war horses which would not be transported back to Britain. The white or dapple grey horse he killed was the horse in the scene, he & other soldiers found a horse which had been whinnying in pain wounded on the battlefield. They rescued & rehabilitated it. These horse killings had broken S.’s heart & deeply affected him for the rest of his life. (Remember the racehorse episode back a season or two?)

The superior officer who ordered Siegfried to kill all the horses may have been the man whose horse he was now again being told to put down on the Seabright estate – from the dialogue: Siegfried to this racehorse’s owner, ” Oh no you don’t, you’re going to stay & watch it this time.” Siegfried is able to save this horse however, by his gentleness & mounting him bareback, he is able to gallop him off over the hill & thus prove him rideable, with time & proper handling & kindness.”

A couple of recaps told me that this kind of episode where the accent is on sorrow and lost can be complained about — and also that there is more of this in this series than is explicitly appreciated. One trick is to keep the depths in the backstory: we never experience what happened to Mrs Hall and Frederick years ago, and our account of it remains incomplete.

I should say now (about the fakery) — I’ve probably said it before — Yorkshire is NOT eternally green, the skies do not ETERNALLY shine. Beige, brown, grey, yellow — yes some sunny days but certainly not in most of the winter. This is Wuthering Heights country. Rain, cold damp, raw — one of podcasts from WETA about the program has a British person who knows better but never a peep out of her. Wintertime days are very short. Very grey. But nevertheless I love their brightly colored animated paratexts, for Christmas covered with white snow. Flaws include that Woodhouse is getting too old to play the awkward semi-innocent (!) male; and Rachel Shenton as Helen is not given enough to do. The gaiety of the show is supplied by this innocent or overtly young non-predatory male. He is so easily controlled by his new love, the British Indian young woman, Florence Pandhi (Sophie Khan Levy)

The dog is hers

The film story does not yet go overtly into politics, but with World War Two coming up, they cannot slide over the threat of Nazism and fascism; instead they render these things hintingly and as beyond everyone’s conception. I doubt they will ever come near the true explanations of the evil’s facets (as Foyle’s War did and does almost every time): the existence of hopelessness and the need to escape into worlds of destruction would astonish these characters as crazed nightmares are precisely the sort of thing this series is an antidote for. The characters all stand firm in their belief the world is fundamentally a good place. Good medicine is what they mean to offer for those who can enter into the wholesome comfort of bargaining that works out well for almost all.

This is more sheer fun than the show and captures something archetypal about each of the characters:

Ellen