The Go-Between

One can understand the BBC's desire to remake "Cider with Rosie" and "Lady Chatterley's Lover", and perhaps even "An Inspector Calls", although the last has at least two fine filmed versions, but their decision to remake "The Go-Between" was a misguided one.

Jospeh Losey's 1971 version is one of those rare occasions in which everything seemed to be right - a top notch cast, beautiful cinematography, a terrific Michel Legrand score and a superb Harold Pinter screenplay. L. P. Hartley himself was moved to tears after seeing the film. So then why remake it? How could it possibly fare in comparison?

This television version does not even begin to compete with its predecessor. Adrian Hodge shows little faith in his audience forgoing any subtlety in his dialogue and general characterisation. The cast are a pale and uncharismatic bunch.

Seek out Hartley's novel and Losey's film - they are masterpieces. Skip this one.

Pete Travis's production is visually breath-taking, with Felix Wiedemann's camera creating a prelapsarian world of turn-of-the- century Norfolk full of bright sunshine and vivid colors of green, yellow and orange. Interior scenes are shot close to large windows flooded with light and illuminating the protagonists' faces; set- pieces such as the cricket match contrast the russet wood of the pavilion and the cricket bat with the off-white garb of the bourgeois players. Leo (Jack Hollington) and Ted Burgess (Ben Batt) are photographed in medium close-up in rolling fields, making it seem as if they inhabit the natural world around them. This use of visual imagery emphasizes the apparently unchanging qualities of the late Victorian/ Edwardian world on which, quite simply, the sun never seems to set; class-differences are firmly entrenched and everyone seems outwardly happy with their lives.

The visuals provide a suitable framework for a tale that puts the stability of this world into question as Ted Burgess conducts a clandestine love-affair with bourgeois Marian (Joanna Vanderham), who is at the same time engaged to her social equal Hugh Trimingham (Stephen Campbell Moore). Director Travis makes much of the social gulf between the two lovers: Marian inhabits a world of parties, croquet matches and formal meals, policed by her mother (Lesley Manville), while Ted leads a solitary life on the farm, caring for his horses and bringing in the hay in late summer. When the two milieux collide, after the cricket match has finished, the bourgeois characters are thoroughly uncomfortable. Mrs. Maudsley looks apprehensively round the room at Ted's social compatriots as they quaff their ale and sing songs, while Trimingham puts on an air of false bonhomie, even though it's clear he'd rather be somewhere else.

In such a socially stratified world, it's obvious that Marian and Ted's love-affair is doomed to failure. Yet neither of them appear to understand this; they prefer to write letters to one another, using Leo as their unwitting messenger. What becomes clear from Travis's production is the extent to which the adults' behavior is governed by self-interest; neither Marian nor Ted have any real concern for Leo's feelings as they repeatedly put emotional pressure on him to carry out their wishes.

Looking back on that summer fifty years later, it's hardly surprising that the adult Leo (Jim Broadbent) should view it with a jaundiced eye. It was chiefly due to Marian and Ted's machinations that Leo ended up emotionally stunted, unable to sustain a relationship to any great depth.

The ending, it must be admitted, seems a little rushed, as the adult Leo encounters the aging Marian (Vanessa Redgrave), who encourages him to set aside his resentments and start to love those around him. Shot in a series of shot/reverse shot sequences, we see Leo's stern countenance gradually relaxing as he understands the truth of Marian's words. In terms of what we have previously seen, however, it seems slightly implausible that he should undergo such a rapid change of character.

Nonetheless Travis's production ends satisfactorily with the younger and older Leo shown together in two-shot against a rural backdrop. At last it seems that Leo has come to terms with his past; it is no longer a "foreign country," as Hartley describes it at the beginning of the source-text.

This version of THE GO-BETWEEN tells the tale in a straightforward manner with due recognition of the social class-divisions that inhibit the characters' reactions. Definitely worth watching.

When I first heard the BBC was going to show a new version of The Go Between I wanted to turn in and watch it. I read the novel years ago and it made a vivid impression on me. Its always been one of my favourite books, and I thought of it with fondness after I moved to East Anglia.

It was wonderful at first seeing the older Leo with his younger self (in his green suit) on the train. I liked how the filming concentrated on the house and the lush greenery. But I was disappointed. The new Marion is no Julie Christie. Fair enough, no one else is Julie Christie except Miss Christie herself, but the Marion in this re-imagining is fair, very pretty, but lacking any real depth until she becomes angry with Leo for not taking messages to Ted. The new Ted, like Marion, is lovely to look at. I wasn't surprised when Ted was swimming in the nude and working in the fields stripped to the waist. (The BBC has been broadcasting several adaptations of classic novels recently including scenes with topless and wet males, trying to capitalize on the fervor made by Colin Firth swimming as Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice) It was nice to have some eye candy for the ladies and it worked well with the themes of the story. The cricket scene and the following concert were well played too.

It turned out to be a chocolate box depiction of the Go Between, full of richness but full of sweetness mostly on the surface, mostly shallow, and ultimately unsatisfying. I disliked the compartmenting of the story so the viewpoint of the old Leo was shoehorned to the end. I missed some of the key scenes in the novel, such as Leo offering his dry bathing suit to Marion so she can dry her hair with it and Leo polishing Ted's cricket bat. I missed seeing Norwich Cathedral, and Marion meeting up again with Leo at the train section wasn't as meaningful as her ditching him at the Cathedral and telling him to wait for her. While the cricket scenes and concert scenes were effective the new version doesn't give as much indication of the class divide as the original novel or the 1971 film. I liked the hints of a Norfolk accent in Ted's speech: it would have been nice to hear and see more Norfolk in the film. It felt very abridged and heavily cut so it could fit into a 90 minute slot. I much prefer the 1971 film. Harold Pinter did a fine job with the screenplay, and the acting is superb. Only Vanessa Redgrave and Jim Broadbent achieve any pathos in this version. The young actor who plays Leo is sweet looking and finely suggests his inner torment. The viewer however isn't given any notion of Leo's acting and conniving to win popularity in the house. Several times in the novel Leo plays for effect, like asking for a large amount of sugar in his tea because small boys are supposed to like sugar. I groaned at the ending: seeing the Old Leo and the young Leo together in the train traveling to the house was effective, but seeing them together walk towards the house at the end, preparing to speak to Marion's grandson, was corny. Marion's recounting of what happened to the others in the house did sound like a rushed through list, and didn't convey the weight of destruction: how the brand new century so promising in that long ago summer turned out to be devastating for Marion, her family, and the country.

The acting of Jack in this movie is outstanding - he should be at the top of the credits.

I also found this adaptation to be far superior to the original, much more attention grabbing.

There is a danger of believing that originals are always the best but this is not always the case.

Lesley Manville portrayed the mother superbly and captured the horrible nature of many women of her age and position - people who did absolutely nothing for a living.

10/10

I have rated this film as 8 out of ten because if you ignore the original version it is an excellent production with some good performances but for me nothing can match the original 1971 version which I would give 10 out of 10.

It was an almost impossible task to attempt to improve on the original and if you can't do that, why bother? Unfortunately the new film blatantly tries to copy the 1971 version in several places and inexplicably omits key lines and characters that were in the L.P. Hartley novel.

And why was the new film not filmed in Norfolk? Berkshire is an unconvincing substitute. Railway buffs will also have noticed that the station shown was obviously southern, probably the Bluebell Railway, not at all like a Norfolk station.