"THE FAR PAVILIONS" (1984) Review

"THE FAR PAVILIONS" (1984) Review

Thirty-four years ago saw the publication of an international best seller about a young British Army officer during the British Raj in 19th century India. The novel's success not brought about a not-so-successful musical stage play in 2005, but also a six-part television miniseries, twenty-one years earlier. 

Directed by Peter Duffell for HBO, "THE FAR PAVILIONS" tells the story of Ashton "Ash" Pelham-Martyn, the only son of prominent British botanist Hillary Pelham-Martyn and his wife in the foothills of the Himalayan Mountains in 1853. After his mother dies of childbirth, Ashton is mainly raised by his ayah (nurse) Sita, who is a part of his father's retinue. Cholera takes the lives of all members of the Pelham-Martyn camp some four years later, with the exception of Ash and Sita. The latter tries to deliver Ash to his mother's family in Mardan, but the uprising of the Sepoy Rebellion leads her to adopt the slightly dark-skinned Ash as her son. Both eventually take refuge in the kingdom of Gulkote. While Ash forgets about his British ancestry, he becomes the servant for Crown Prince Lalji and befriends the neglected Princess Anjuli, Master of Stables Koda Dad, and his son Zarin. Ashton eventually leaves Gulkote after learning from the dying Sita about his true ancestry. After reaching his relatives in Mardan, Ash is sent back to Great Britain to live with his Pelham-Martyn relations. Within less than a decade, he returns to India as a newly commissioned British Army. Not only does he make new acquaintances, but also renews old ones - including the Princess Anjuli.

British costume dramas have always been popular with American television and movie audiences for decades. But aside from the Jane Austen phenomenon between 1995 and 2008, there seemed to be an even bigger demand for period pieces from the U.K. during the 1980s . . . a major consequence from the popular royal wedding of the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer. HBO and Peter Duffell took M.M. Kaye's 1978 bestseller and transformed it into a miniseries filled with six one-hour episodes. Aside from a few changes, "THE FAR PAVILIONS" was more or less a television hit. And in many ways, it was easy to see why.

First of all, Kaye's story about a forbidden love story between a British Army officer viewed as an outsider by most of his fellow Britons and an Indian princess with a touch of European blood (Russian) was bound to appeal to the most romantic. Add an epic trek across the Indian subcontinent (in the form of a royal wedding party), action on the North West frontier and a historical event - namely the start of the Second Anglo-Afghan War - and one is faced with a costumed epic of the most romantic kind. And I am flabbergasted at how the story managed to criticize the British presence in both India and Afghanistan, and at the same time, glorify the military aspect of the British Empire. If I must be honest, M.M. Kaye not only wrote a pretty damn good story, but she and screenwriter Julian Bond did a solid job in adapting the novel for television.

Now, I said solid, not excellent. Even the most first-rate miniseries is not perfect, but I feel that "THE FAR PAVILIONS"possessed flaws that prevented it from being the superb production it could have been. The miniseries' main problem seemed to be its look. I had no problems with Robert W. Laing's production designs. His work, along with George Richardson's art direction, Jack Cardiff's superb cinematography, and Hugh Scaife's set decorations superbly brought mid-to-late 19th century British India to life. I was especially impressed by the crew's re-creation of the Rana of Bhithor's palace, the cantonments for the Corps of Guides regiment and the royal wedding procession for the Rana of Bhitor's brides - Princess Shushila and Princess Anjuli of Karidkote (formerly Gulkote). For a miniseries that cost $12 million dollars to produce, why shoot it on such poor quality film, whose color seemed to have faded over the past two or three decades? It seemed criminal that such a lush production was shot on film of bad quality. 

As much as I admired Bond and Kaye's adaptation of the latter's novel, there were two aspects of their script that annoyed me. One, the screenplay skipped one of the novel's best parts - namely Ash's childhood in Gulkote. Instead, the story of his birth, early travels with Sita and his time in Gulkote were revealed in a montage that served as backdrop for the opening credits. And I was not that impressed at how the script handled Ash's early romance with a young English debutante named Belinda Harlowe. I found it rushed and unsatisfying. More importantly, the entire sequence seemed like a waste of Felicity Dean and Rupert Everett's (who played Ash's doomed rival George Garforth) time. And some of the dialogue for the romantic scenes between Ash and Juli struck me as so wince inducing that it took me a while to unclench my teeth after the scenes ended.

I had other problems with "THE FAR PAVILIONS". The casting of American actress Amy Irving as the adult Princess Anjli ("Juli") produced a "what the hell?" response from me when I first saw the miniseries. That startled feeling remained after my last viewing. Irving simply seemed miscast in the role, despite a decent performance from her and her solid chemistry with lead actor Ben Cross. Another role that failed to match with the performer was that of British military administrator, Sir Louis Cavagnari, portrayed by John Gielgud. Cavagnari was 39 years old, when he met his death at the British mission in Kabul, Afghanistan. Gielgud was 79 to 80 years old when he portrayed the military officer . . . naturally too old for the role. The makeup department tried to take years off the actor with hair dye and make-up. Let us just say that Amy Irving was more convincing as an Indian princess than Gielgud was as a character 40 years his junior. However, I will give Gielgud plenty of credit for his excellent portrayal of a British Imperial diplomat at his most arrogant.

Aside from my quibbles about the casting of Amy Irving and John Gielgud, I have no complaints about the rest of the cast. Ben Cross did a superb job in his portrayal of the hot tempered and impatient Ashton Pelham-Martyn. Ash has always been a frustrating character for me. Although I sympathized with his feelings and beliefs, his occasional bursts of impatience and naiveté irritated me. And Cross perfectly captured all of these aspects of Ash's nature. Despite my strong belief that she was miscast, I cannot deny that Amy Irving gave a subtle and well acted performance as Princess Anjuli. But I could never accuse Omar Sharif of being miscast. He did a superb job in his portrayal of the wise and very witty horsemaster of Gulkote/Karidkote, Koda Dad. Sharif made it easy to see why Ash came to regard Koda Dad as more of a father figure than any other older male. Although I believe that Irving was miscast as Princess Anjuli, I was surprised at how impressed I was by Christopher Lee's portrayal of Anjuli's uncle, Prince Kaka-ji Rao. The Anglo-Spanish actor did an excellent job of portraying a character from a completely different race. I suspect the secret to Lee's performance was that he did not try so hard to sell the idea of him being an Indian prince. And Saeed Jaffrey was superb as the effeminate, yet manipulate and murderous courtier, Biju Ram. It seemed a pity that the miniseries did not explore Ash's childhood. Audiences would have been able to enjoy more of Jaffrey's performance.

Sneh Gupta was excellent as childishly imperious and self-absorbed Princess Shushila, Juli's younger sister. She did a first-rate job of transforming Shushila from a sympathetic character to a childishly imperious villainess. Robert Hardy gave a solid performance as the Commandant of the Guides. Benedict Taylor was charming and outgoing as Ash's only military friend, Walter "Wally" Hamilton. I really do not know how to describe Rosanno Brazzi's performance as the Rana of Bhithor. I feel that too much makeup made it difficult for me to get a grip on his character. I was surprised to see Art Malik as Koda Dad's son, Zarin. But his role did not seem big enough to produce a comment from me. Rupert Everett was excellent as George Garforth, the British civil servant with a secret to hide. Unfortunately, I was less than impressed with the miniseries' portrayal of the story line in which he played a part. 

I realize that "THE FAR PAVILIONS" has a good number of strikes against it. But its virtues outweighed its flaws. And in the end, it proved to be an entertaining miniseries, thanks to the lush production and the first-rate cast led by Ben Cross.

"THE FAR PAVILIONS" (1983) Screenshots Gallery

Below are images from "THE FAR PAVILIONS", the 1983 television adaptation of M.M. Kaye's 1978 novel. Ben Cross, Amy Irving, Omar Sharif and Christopher Lee starred: 


"THE FAR PAVILIONS" (1983) Screenshots Gallery

"LITTLE DORRIT" (2008) Review

"LITTLE DORRIT" (2008) Review

In my review of the 1998 miniseries, "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND", I had stated that I was never a real fan of Victorian author, Charles Dickens. But I was willing to give the author another chance with a second viewing of the miniseries. However, I have yet to watch "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" for a second time. Instead, I turned my attention to another miniseries based on a Dickens novel - the 2008 production of "LITTLE DORRIT". 

Based upon Dickens's 1855-1857 serialized novel, "LITTLE DORRIT" is basically the story of a young late Georgian Englishwoman named Amy Dorrit, who spends her days earning money for the Dorrit family and looking after her proud father William, who is a long term inmate of Marshalsea Prison for Debt in London. When her employer's son, Arthur Clennam returns from overseas to solve his family's mysterious legacy, Amy and her family's world is transformed for the better. And she discovers that her family's lives and those of the Clennan family are interlinked. Considering that "LITTLE DORRIT" is a Dickens tale, one is bound to encounter a good deal of subplots. Please bear with me. I might not remember all of them. I do recall the following:

*Arthur Clennam is initially rejected by Pet Meagles, the daughter of a former business associate, due to her infatuation for artist Henry Gowan.

*John Chivery, the son of the Marshalsea Prison warden, harbors unrequited love for Amy Dorrit.

*A mysterious Englishwoman named Miss Wade, had been jilted by Henry Gowan in the past; and has now extended her hatred and resentment towards his wife, Pet Meagles and her family. She also notices their patronizing attitude toward their maid/ward, Harriet Beadle aka Tattycoram.

*Amy's older sister, Fanny, becomes romantically involved with the step-son of wealthy businessman Mr. Merdle.

*Mr. Merdle becomes the force behind a fraudulent speculation scheme that impacts the London financial world.

*French criminal Rigaud/Blandois not only stumbles across the Clennam family secret regarding the Dorrit family, but is also recruited by Miss Wade to accompany Henry and Pet Gowran on their Italian honeymoon.

If there is one thing I can say about "LITTLE DORRIT", it is a beautiful looking production. Four of the Emmy Awards that the miniseries won were in the technical categories. Production designer James Merifield, art director Paul Ghirardani, and set decorator Deborah Wilson all shared the Emmy Award for Outstanding Art Direction in a Miniseries or Movie (they shared the award with the art direction team for HBO's "GREY GARDENS"). And honestly? They deserved that award, thanks to their outstanding re-creation of both London and Italy in the 1820s. Owen McPolin, Alan Almond and Lukas Strebel, who won the Outstanding Cinematography Emmy; contributed to that re-creation of 1820s Europe with their sharp, colorful and beautiful photography. Costume designer Barbara Kidd and costume supervisor also won Emmy awards for the beautiful, gorgeous costumes created for this production. Not only did I find the costumes beautiful, but also a perfection re-creation of the mid-1820s fashions, as depicted in the images below:



 

I could go on and on about the many subplots featured in "LITTLE DORRIT". But honestly . . . I am too exhausted to do so. The only plots that interested me were the fortunes of both the Dorrit family and Arthur Clennam, Mrs. Clennam's secret about her husband's past, and Mr. Merdle's financial schemes. I thought that Emmy winning screenwriter Andrew Davies and directors Adam Smith, Dearbhla Walsh (also an Emmy winner for her direction of Episode One), and Diarmuid Lawrence did a very good job in handling these plot lines. Or tried his best. His adaptation of the rise and fall of the Dorrit family's fortunes was probably the best thing about "LITTLE DORRIT". This was especially effective in plot lines that revolved around Amy Dorrit's inability to adjust to her new status as the daughter of a wealthy man and especially, William Dorrit's inabilities to move past his memories of the Marshalsea Prison. The subplot regarding the Dorrit family's ties to the Merdle family also struck me as very effective. Fanny Dorrit's relationship with Merdle's stepson, Edmund Sparkler proved to be one of the funniest and more satisfying subplots in "LITTLE DORRIT". And the subplot regarding Mr. Merdle's financial schemes not only effected both the Dorrit family and Arthur Clennam's fortunes in an effective way, it also strongly reminded me of the circumstances that led to the international community's current economic situation.

However, there were subplots that did not strike me as that effective. I wish I could solely blame Charles Dickens. But I cannot. Davies and the three directors have to take some of the blame for not making some improvements to these subplots, when they had the chance to do so. The subplot regarding the Meagles family, their servant "Tattycoram" and Miss Wade struck me as a disaster. I found it poorly handled, especially the narrative regarding the fate of "Tattycoram". In the end, nothing really came from Miss Wade's resentment of Henry Cowan, the Meagles and especially her relationship with "Tattycoram". I am also a little confused at the financial connection between the Clennam and Dorrit families. Could someone explain why an affair between Arthur's father and some dancer would lead to a possible inheritance for Amy Dorrit? Many critics have tried to explain Dickens' creation of the French villain Monsieur Rigaud. No explanation can erase my dislike of the character or its addition to the subplots involving the Clennam/Dorrit connection and the Gowans' honeymoon. I realize that Rigaud was Charles Dickens' creation. But it seemed a pity that Davies and the three directors did nothing to improve the use of Rigaud . . . or eliminate the character altogether. Aside from killing Jeremiah Flintwinch's twin brother, intimidating other characters and blackmailing Mrs. Clennam, he really did nothing as a villain.

If there is one thing I have no complaints regarding "LITTLE DORRIT", it is the excellent performances found in the production. I honestly have no complaints about the performances in the miniseries. I can even say this about those characters, whose portrayals by the writers that I found troubling. And yes, I am referring to Andy Serkis and Freema Agyeman's performances as Rigoud and "Tattycoram". Both gave excellent performances, even if I did not care how Dickens, Davies or the directors handled their characters. Emma Pierson, an actress I have never heard of, gave a superb and very entertaining peformance as Fanny Dorrit, Amy's ambitious and rather blunt older sister. I would have say that Pierson's performance struck me as the funniest in the miniseries. I was amazed at how intimidating Eddie Marsan looked at the rent collector, Mr. Pancks. Yet, Marsan went beyond his superficial appearance to portray one of the most compassionate, yet energetic characters in the production. I was also impressed by Russell Tovey's portrayal of the love-sick John Chivery, who harbored unrequited love for Amy Dorrit. Tovey managed to give a very intense performance, without going over-the-top. And I found that quite an accomplishment.

However, there are a handful of performances that really impressed me. Two of them came from the leads Claire Foy and Matthew McFadyen. On paper, the characters of Amy Dorrit and Arthur Clennam struck me as boring and one-dimensional. They were simply too goody two-shoes. But somehow, both Foy and McFadyen managed to inject a great deal of fire into their roles, making them not only interesting, but allowing me to care for them a great deal. Another outstanding performance came from Judy Parfitt, who portrayed Arthur's guilt-ridden and cold mother, Mrs. Clennam. But instead of portraying the character as a one-note monstrous mother, Parfitt conveyed a good deal of Mrs. Clennam's guilt regarding her husband's will and inner emotional struggles over the memories of her marriage and what Arthur really meant to her. Another outstanding performance came from Tom Courtenay, who portrayed the vain and insecure William Dorrit. In fact, I would have to say that he gave the most complex and probably the best performance in the entire production. Courtenay managed to create contempt I felt toward his character with skillful acting, yet at the same time, he made William Dorrit so pathetic and sympathetic. I am amazed that he did not receive a nomination or acting award for his performance.

I now come back to that earlier question. Did "LITTLE DORRIT" improve my opinion of Charles Dickens as a writer? Not really. Although I cannot deny that it is a beautiful looking production. Some of the subplots not only struck me as interesting, but also relevant to today's economic situation. And the miniseries featured some outstanding performances from a cast led by Claire Foy and Matthew McFayden. But some of the other subplots, which originated in Dickens' novel struck me as either troubling or unimpressive. So . . . I am not quite a fan of his. Not yet. But despite its flaws, I am a fan of this 2008 adaptation of his 1855-1857 novel.

"LITTLE DORRIT" (2008) Photo Gallery

Below is a gallery of photos from the 2008 BBC miniseries, "LITTLE DORRIT". Written by Andrew Davies, the production starred Matthew Macfadyen, Claire Foy, Tom Courtenay, Judy Parfitt and Freema Agyeman: 


"LITTLE DORRIT" (2008) Photo Gallery

"MIDDLEMARCH" (1994) Review

"MIDDLEMARCH" (1994) Review

Many years have passed since I first saw "MIDDLEMARCH", the 1994 BBC adaptation of George Eliot's 1871 novel. Many years. I recalled enjoying it . . . somewhat. But it had failed to leave any kind of impression upon me. Let me revise that. At least two performances left an impression upon me. But after watching the miniseries for the second time, after so many years, I now realize I should have paid closer attention to the production.

Directed by Anthony Page and adapted for television by Andrew Davies, "MIDDLEMARCH" told the story about a fictitious Midlands town during the years 1830–32. Its multiple plots explored themes that included the status of women and class status, the nature of marriage, idealism and self-interest, religion and hypocrisy, political reform, and education. There seemed to be at least four major story arcs in the saga. Actually, I would say there are two major story arcs and two minor ones. The first of the minor story arcs focused on Fred Vincy, the only son of Middlemarch's mayor, who has a tendency to be spendthrift and irresponsible. Fred is encouraged by his ambitious parents to find a secure life and advance his class standing by becoming a clergyman. But Fred knows that Mary Garth, the woman he loves, will not marry him if he does become one. And there is Mr. Nicholas Bulstrode, Middlemarch's prosperous banker, who is married to Fred's aunt. Mr. Bulstrode is a pious Methodist who is unpopular with Middlemarch's citizens, due to his attempts to impose his beliefs in society. However, he also has a sordid past which he is desperate to hide.

However, two story arcs dominated "MIDDLEMARCH". One of them centered around Dorothea Brooke, the older niece of a wealthy landowner with ambitions to run for political office, and her determination to find some kind of ideal meaning in her life. She becomes somewhat romantically involved with a scholarly clergyman and fellow landowner named the Reverend Edward Casaubon in the hopes of assisting him in his current research. Dorothea eventually finds disappointment in her marriage, as Reverend Casaubon proves to be a selfish and pedantic man who is more interested in his research than anyone else - including his wife. The second arc told the story about a proud, ambitious and talented medical doctor of high birth and a small income named Tertius Lydgate. He arrives at Middlemarch at the beginning of the story in the hopes of making great advancements in medicine through his research and the charity hospital in Middlemarch. Like Dorothea, he ends up in an unhappy marriage with a beautiful, young social climber named Rosamond Vincy, who is more concerned about their social position and the advantages of marrying a man from a higher class than her own. Dr. Lydgage's proud nature and professional connections to Mr. Bulstrode, makes him very unpopular with the locals.

After watching "MIDDLEMARCH", it occurred to me it is one of the best miniseries that came from British television in the past twenty to thirty years. I also believe that it might be one of Andrew Davies' best works. Mind you, "MIDDLEMARCH" is not perfect. It has its flaws . . . perhaps one or two of them . . . but flaws, nonetheless. While watching "MIDDLEMARCH", I got the feeling that screenwriter Andrew Davies could not balance the story arcs featuring Dorothea Brooke and Tertius Lydgate with any real equilibrium. It seemed that most of his interest was focused upon Lydgate as the saga's main character, instead of dividing that honor between Lydgate and Dorothea. While the miniseries revealed Dorothea's unhappy marriage to Casaubon, Davies' screenplay in the first three episodes, Davies did a first rate job in balancing both hers and Lydgate's stories. But Lydgate seemed to dominate the second half of the miniseries - the last three episodes - as his story shoved Dorothea's to the status of a minor plot arc. Mind you, I found the Lydgates' marriage fascinating. But Davies failed to deliver any real . . . punch to Dorothea's story arc and especially her relationship with her cousin-in-law, Will Ladislaw. If I have to be honest, Dorothea and Will's relationship following Casaubon's death struck me as rushed and a bit disappointing.

Thankfully, the virtues outweighed the flaws. Because "MIDDLEMARCH" still managed to be an outstanding miniseries. Davies did a more or less excellent job in weaving the production's many storylines without any confusion whatsoever. In fact, I have to congratulate Davies for accomplishing this feat. And I have to congratulate director Anthony Page for keeping the production and its story in order with allowing the latter to unravel into a complete mess. More importantly, both Page and Davies adhered to George Eliot's ambiguous portrayal of her cast of characters. Even her two most ideal characters - Dorothea and Lydgate - are plagued by their own personal flaws. Some of the characters were able to overcome their flaws for a "happily ever after" and some were not. The period between the Regency Era and the Victorian Age has rarely been explored in television or in motion pictures. But thanks to "MIDDLEMARCH", I have learned about the political movements that led to the Great Reform Act of 1832. A good number of people might find Eliot's saga somewhat depressing and wish she had ended her story with a more romantic vein in the style of Jane Austen . . . or allow Dorothea and Lydgate to happily achieve their altruistic goals. However . . . "MIDDLEMARCH" is not an Austen novel.

I am trying to think of a performance that seemed less than impressive. But I cannot think of one. I was very impressed by everyone's performances. And the ones that really impressed me came from Juliet Aubrey's spot-on performance as the ideal and naive Dorothea Brooke; Jonathan Firth, whose portrayal of the spendthrift Fred Vincy turned out to be one of his best career performances; Rufus Sewell, who first made a name for himself in his passionate portrayal of Casaubon's poor cousin, Will Ladislaw; Peter Jeffrey's complex performance as the ambiguous Nicholas Bulstrode; Julian Wadham as the decent Sir James Chattam, whose unrequited love for Dorothea led him to marry her sister Cecila and develop a deep dislike toward Will; and Rachel Power, who gave a strong, yet solid performance as Fred Vincy's love, the no-nonsense Mary Garth.

However, four performances really impressed me. Both Douglas Hodge and Trevyn McDowell really dominated the miniseries as the ideal, yet slightly arrogant Tertius Lydgate and his shallow and social-climbing wife, Rosamond Vincy Lydgate. The pair superbly brought the Lydgates' passionate, yet disastrous marriage to life . . . even more so than Davies' writing or Page's direction. And I have to give kudos to Patrick Malahide for portraying someone as complex and difficult Reverend Edward Casaubon. The latter could have easily been a one-note character lacking of any sympathy. But thanks to Malahide, audiences were allowed glimpses into an insecure personality filled with surprising sympathy. And Robert Hardy was a hilarious blast as Dorothea's self-involved uncle, the politically ambitious Arthur Brooke. What I enjoyed about Hardy's performance is that his Uncle Brooke seemed like such a friendly and sympathetic character. Yet, Hardy made it clear that this cheerful soul has a selfish streak a mile wide. And despite his willingness to use the current reform movement to seek political office, he is incapable of treating the tenants on his estate with any decency.

"MIDDLEMARCH" could not only boast a first-rate screenplay written by Andrew Davies, first rate direction by Anthony Page and a superb cast; it could also boast excellent production values. One of the crew members responsible for the miniseries' production was Anushia Nieradzik, who created some beautiful costumes that clearly reflected the story's period of the early 1830s. I was also impressed by Gerry Scott's use of a Lincolnshire town called Stamford as a stand-in for 1830-32 Middlemarch. And Brian Tufano's photography beautifully captured Scott's work and the town itself.

Yes, "MIDDLEMARCH" has a few flaws. And the photography featured in the latest copy seems a bit faded. But I believe that it is, without a doubt, one of the finest British television productions from the last twenty to twenty-five years. After all of these years, I have a much higher regard for it than when I first saw it.

"MIDDLEMARCH" ( 1994) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "MIDDLEMARCH", the 1994 BBC adaptation of George Eliot's 1871 novel. Adapted by Andrew Davies and directed by Anthony Page, the six-part miniseries starred Juliet Aubrey, Douglas Hodge, Rufus Sewell and Robert Hardy:



"MIDDLEMARCH" (1994) Photo Gallery