The Portrait of a Lady

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?

We picked up the two tape boxed set of this show at a garage sale for a bargain two bucks and started watching it that night. It seemed stiff and stolid until I realiized... The characters are stage acting, with exagerated body language and strong voice projection. Thats understandable when you realize the program was done in 1968, the early days of this sort of TV project. But once you wrap your mind around this fact and start watching it as a stage play rather than a TV drama, it becomes most enjoyable, a classic British drawing room drama. 1968 was almost 40 years ago, yet the program (if not all its performers) has aged well. The technical quality of the colour and image is excellent. The production techniques and sets are, if anything, refreshing in their lack of gimmickry. A confession... This is written after watching only the first of the two tapes. Four hours is a bit much for anything other than a Wagnerian opera. But I eagerly look forward to the second half tonight!

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.

It is highly recommended watching these series together with reading the novel. The story is basically indoors so it has the atmosphere of a play. However the book contains some outdoor activities in London, Florence and Rome. They were missed completely. Because of this the movie doesn't come alive as for instance 'A room with a view' does which has basically the same settings. Much attention is given to interior decorating and costumes. They are worth watching on their own. In close up scenes it was visible that large amounts of grime were there. That gave even more a sense of watching a play. In the end a crucial scene was completely lost in the movie that I won't spoil. For me Pansy was the true hero of the movie more so than in the book because of her acting so wistful.

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.