Any views on the latest Dickens offering from the Beeb?
I thought this was much better than the pre-Christmas Great Expectations. The casting and acting were generally better, as was the script, and the completion offered an interesting solution to the mystery. Matthew Rhys as Jasper and Rory Kinnear as Crisparkle were particularly good, and there were good performances in the roles of Grewgious, Datchery, Princess Puffer, Durdles and Deputy (would have liked a bit more from the last two). Neville Landless was appropriately quick-tempered, but Helena, though very good-looking, was rather on the soft and gentle side for someone described as tigerish in the book. The locations centred around the Cathedral were very atmospheric. A pity that we lost Mr Honeythunder and the Billickin, but this is the austerity Dickens in which character is sacrificed to plot.
[SPOILER ALERT]
As to the completion, it was an interesting idea to resurrect Drood's father (only to bury him again) and to have Edwin return alive towards the end - thereby confounding the expectation built up during the completed chapters. But I thought it stretched the bounds of plausibility to have all Jasper, Edwin and the Landlesses all related. Parricide and fratricide are never found in Dickens' other books, though there are plenty of examples of neglectful, cruel and hurtful fathers and brothers. And everything in the book points to there having been a crime committed (not necessarily a murder) on that stormy evening, yet the completion suggested that nothing really happened that evening, but that the murder - of Drood's father - happened a year earlier. What happened to Edwin in the interim? And why was Jasper horrified when Grewgious told him of the break-up of Edwin's engagement to Rosa - that only makes sense if he had committed an unnecessary crime?
Fwiw, here is my suggested completion: Jasper strangles Edwin on that stormy evening and disposes of the body among the Cathedral tombs. But he strangles Edwin without killing him and Edwin is able to recover and 'disappear', concealing himself away from Cloisterham with the assistance of Datchery (and perhaps Durdles). Possible initial titles for the work that Dickens originally came up with included 'The Flight of Edwin Drood' and 'The Disappearance of Edwin Drood' (and 'Dead? or Alive?'). Jasper then pursues Neville Landless whom he suspects of being interested in Rosa, and successfully kills him. The net closes on Jasper after his opium-induced confession to Princess Puffer is disclosed to Datchery. The denouement is a pursuit of the criminal up the winding tower stair, where Jasper has to confront - as he thinks - two characters he has killed: Edwin Drood (shown in the bottom illustration in the Luke Fildes cover design) and Neville Landless (in reality Helena in disguise). Edwin Drood was charged by Grewgious to return the ring to him 'by the living and the dead', and he would do so as a man both living and dead, or at least returned from the brink of the grave.
I thought this was much better than the pre-Christmas Great Expectations. The casting and acting were generally better, as was the script, and the completion offered an interesting solution to the mystery. Matthew Rhys as Jasper and Rory Kinnear as Crisparkle were particularly good, and there were good performances in the roles of Grewgious, Datchery, Princess Puffer, Durdles and Deputy (would have liked a bit more from the last two). Neville Landless was appropriately quick-tempered, but Helena, though very good-looking, was rather on the soft and gentle side for someone described as tigerish in the book. The locations centred around the Cathedral were very atmospheric. A pity that we lost Mr Honeythunder and the Billickin, but this is the austerity Dickens in which character is sacrificed to plot.
[SPOILER ALERT]
As to the completion, it was an interesting idea to resurrect Drood's father (only to bury him again) and to have Edwin return alive towards the end - thereby confounding the expectation built up during the completed chapters. But I thought it stretched the bounds of plausibility to have all Jasper, Edwin and the Landlesses all related. Parricide and fratricide are never found in Dickens' other books, though there are plenty of examples of neglectful, cruel and hurtful fathers and brothers. And everything in the book points to there having been a crime committed (not necessarily a murder) on that stormy evening, yet the completion suggested that nothing really happened that evening, but that the murder - of Drood's father - happened a year earlier. What happened to Edwin in the interim? And why was Jasper horrified when Grewgious told him of the break-up of Edwin's engagement to Rosa - that only makes sense if he had committed an unnecessary crime?
Fwiw, here is my suggested completion: Jasper strangles Edwin on that stormy evening and disposes of the body among the Cathedral tombs. But he strangles Edwin without killing him and Edwin is able to recover and 'disappear', concealing himself away from Cloisterham with the assistance of Datchery (and perhaps Durdles). Possible initial titles for the work that Dickens originally came up with included 'The Flight of Edwin Drood' and 'The Disappearance of Edwin Drood' (and 'Dead? or Alive?'). Jasper then pursues Neville Landless whom he suspects of being interested in Rosa, and successfully kills him. The net closes on Jasper after his opium-induced confession to Princess Puffer is disclosed to Datchery. The denouement is a pursuit of the criminal up the winding tower stair, where Jasper has to confront - as he thinks - two characters he has killed: Edwin Drood (shown in the bottom illustration in the Luke Fildes cover design) and Neville Landless (in reality Helena in disguise). Edwin Drood was charged by Grewgious to return the ring to him 'by the living and the dead', and he would do so as a man both living and dead, or at least returned from the brink of the grave.
My thoughts agree with yours, second part was far, far, better than the first. I might even have another view before it expires on iplayer but I have to confess that I don't know the book, I was viewing a Victorian murder mystery rather than a Dickens adaptation so obviously looking at it from a different perspective.
Comment