The Portrait of a Lady

It is true that the style of this production seems very dated now, but it was an immense success in the UK when it was first shown. Richard Chamberlain was at the time chiefly famous for the Dr Kildare series, and scarcely thought of as an actor. But his intensely moving performance as Ralph Touchett was a revelation, and received the highest praise from the critics. Television stars of the time, when they attempted something more ambitious, talked about 'doing a Richard Chamberlain'. Probably as a result of his performance, soon afterwards he played Hamlet on stage and on TV.

It is interesting to watch this series, one of the first British dramatizations of a classic novel, to see how far and how fast the method of filmmaking developed in subsequent years. In comparison with the great work the BBC was doing 10 or even 5 years later, "Portrait of a Lady" definitely seems like it comes out of the stone age of TV drama. There is something very stiff and stilted about this dramatization, though I suspect it is reasonably faithful to the book. First of all, the length is very gruelling; it's been some years since I watched it, but I seem to recall it being about 4 or 5 hours long. In a piece of such length, one suddenly notices the lack of artistry in the film work - most of the scenes are shot with a stationary camera, sort of middle distance, with very little in the way of closeups or angle changes. It is, for all the world, just like watching a stage play on TV, and I suspect that at this early stage, that is precisely how British television approached classic literature. Most of the story takes place indoors, which is rather a relief, as the occasional exterior scene tossed in looks embarrassingly fake.

The acting is good, and it's delightful to see Edward Fox in this series, so young and handsome, but the pacing is glacial. By the time I'd gotten about two-thirds of the way through this series, I realized that the characters were just going to talk and talk, and were never going to DO anything at all. Friends of mine who have read a lot of Henry James assure me that that is exactly what his novels are like, so perhaps the series gets points for fidelity to its origin, but it just doesn't make for very interesting TV.

I couldn't even get halfway through the Nicole Kidman fiasco, so I was glad to find this series, and even happier to discover the great Richard Chamberlain (whom I saw in person, BTW) in an early role. He was excellent as the heroine's Cousin Ralph, and so was Suzanne Neve, as Isabel Archer, the young heiress (thanks to her uncle's timely demise) who longs to be free of convention and live life on her own terms, but who - ironically - gets herself bound by marriage to the wrong man, in a life she feels is no longer her own. She finds she can't so easily escape either duty (to her marriage vows) nor responsibility (to the stepdaughter who needs her).

Even more ironic, is her early decision to avoid marriage, despite her feelings for Casper Goodwood (Ed Bishop), because she longs to be free, to travel, find herself and what she really wants, even if it shouldn't bring her happiness in the long run. And yet she ends up agreeing to marry an older man, (Gilbert Osmond, played by James Maxwell) whom she shares an interest in art with, without any particular emotional attachment, apparently okay with relinquishing the freedom she was so gung-ho on.

I think she was really frightened of feeling anything profound, like love or desire, scared it would make her too vulnerable, so instead she chooses a more aesthetic relationship, which wouldn't threaten her sense of self. In short, she prefers the 'lie-there-and-think-of-England" type of marriage, to one with orgasms.

More ironic still, is the way the suitors she rejected keep turning up, one like a bad penny (Edward fox as Lord Warburton, who pursues her stepdaughter for reasons other than affection), the other (Casper) to remind her what she's thrown away.

She wanted freedom, yet put herself in a cage, and isn't sure she can accept the key.

Done in the old Tape and Talent style of British adaptations of novels, it is a poignant and absorbing telling of the story. The cast, Richard Chamberlain included, shows what ensemble work is all about.

There used to be a tape of this series. Where is it now?

First and foremost, I must praise the screenplay by Jack ('I, Claudius') Pulman, which captures James' world so perfectly. James has a remarkably unsentimental view of his characters, presenting his 'heroes' and 'villains' in equally fascinating shades of grey. Beatrix Lehmann and Kathleen ('Black Narcissus') Byron are marvellous as two of the 'good' characters who take no trouble to be liked (cf Rachel Gurney's charming Madame Merle)- perhaps James Maxwell's 'villain' needs to be a little more charming if we are not to take Isabel for a fool. Perhaps also Suzanne Neve is a little opaque as Isabel - but that's almost the point. Richard Chamberlain and Edward Fox are both excellent as her lordly suitor and sickly cousin and benefactor respectively. True, the studio-bound video camerawork looks dated - this was a very early colour production - and I quickly stopped remarking on it. And as a James fan who's sat through numerous glossy film adaptations which got nowhere near his wonderfully ambiguous heart, the reissue of this version on BBC Video is a cause for celebration - I've watched it at least three times, and enjoyed it more each time. Can we now have Pulman's 'The Golden Bowl', please?