CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
6.8/10
1.6 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Agrega una trama en tu idiomaAn elderly man pieces together his childhood memories after finding his diary from 1900, which he wrote when he was 13 years old.An elderly man pieces together his childhood memories after finding his diary from 1900, which he wrote when he was 13 years old.An elderly man pieces together his childhood memories after finding his diary from 1900, which he wrote when he was 13 years old.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Nominada a1 premio BAFTA
- 2 premios ganados y 2 nominaciones en total
Tony Pankhurst
- Station Porter
- (sin créditos)
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
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.
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.
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.
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.
This was a major disappointment compared to the novel and original film. Like most modern period dramas, it is style over substance, with stunning photography masking a misguided script and some unconvincing acting.
The earlier 1971 movie was a flawless adaptation, with Harold Pinter's script tending to say less with more, upping the tension with the slow, languid pace reflecting the heat of the summer and limited, meaningful dialog. Here, unnecessary lines are inserted as will, many not even in the novel, such as Leo's embarrassment about his old and ragged summer clothes after Marian accuses him of lying – this is just a cheap way of garnering sympathy for the boy, and not reflective of the times it was set. Such things would have been left unsaid. It is the same through the program; everything needs to be spelt out, rather than leaving it to the actors to subtly convey.
There are poor minor plot additions such as Ted seeming defensive about being poor – certainly not true to the book, and a far cry from Alan Bates and his worldly self confidence. Here he attempts to be brooding and moody, as oppose to charismatic and cheery but with a fiery temper, and it makes him far less likable and far less obvious why Marian would risk everything for him. Mariam herself is only passably acted, with Julie Christie an impossible act to follow. Marian's father being away is another pointless adjustment, and the production misses his steady, world weary presence, especially in the smoking room scene that was so integral to the first film. Trimmingham also loses some of his aristocratic dignity and military bearing, and the writer inexplicably takes away his fantastic line that gives him such honour and pathos: "Nothing is ever a ladies fault, Leo".
Leo himself puts in a fairly lifeless, strangely camp performance, with a certain charm combined with adolescent awkwardness which is very different from the more honest, believable performance in the film. Less attention paid to the central theme of oppressive heat, the film seems to move much quicker and out of sequence. It's also more outwardly emotional, compared to the stoicism of the film and novel, where passions are repressed and below the surface. The vital moments here are filled with shrieks and histrionics. The final meeting is too warm and pleasant – it should have that edge of regret, memory, pain and nostalgia mixed together, the dialog has been watered down, the hint of bitterness discarded.
Unfortunately it suffers greatly by comparison, because taken by itself it is a very solid, beautifully shot production. The filming is breathtaking, with so many lovely touches including the reflection in the water scene and that wonderful final shot of older Leo against the hall and endless lawn. For people who haven't seen the original or read the book this may seem a far better film that the one I have described.
The earlier 1971 movie was a flawless adaptation, with Harold Pinter's script tending to say less with more, upping the tension with the slow, languid pace reflecting the heat of the summer and limited, meaningful dialog. Here, unnecessary lines are inserted as will, many not even in the novel, such as Leo's embarrassment about his old and ragged summer clothes after Marian accuses him of lying – this is just a cheap way of garnering sympathy for the boy, and not reflective of the times it was set. Such things would have been left unsaid. It is the same through the program; everything needs to be spelt out, rather than leaving it to the actors to subtly convey.
There are poor minor plot additions such as Ted seeming defensive about being poor – certainly not true to the book, and a far cry from Alan Bates and his worldly self confidence. Here he attempts to be brooding and moody, as oppose to charismatic and cheery but with a fiery temper, and it makes him far less likable and far less obvious why Marian would risk everything for him. Mariam herself is only passably acted, with Julie Christie an impossible act to follow. Marian's father being away is another pointless adjustment, and the production misses his steady, world weary presence, especially in the smoking room scene that was so integral to the first film. Trimmingham also loses some of his aristocratic dignity and military bearing, and the writer inexplicably takes away his fantastic line that gives him such honour and pathos: "Nothing is ever a ladies fault, Leo".
Leo himself puts in a fairly lifeless, strangely camp performance, with a certain charm combined with adolescent awkwardness which is very different from the more honest, believable performance in the film. Less attention paid to the central theme of oppressive heat, the film seems to move much quicker and out of sequence. It's also more outwardly emotional, compared to the stoicism of the film and novel, where passions are repressed and below the surface. The vital moments here are filled with shrieks and histrionics. The final meeting is too warm and pleasant – it should have that edge of regret, memory, pain and nostalgia mixed together, the dialog has been watered down, the hint of bitterness discarded.
Unfortunately it suffers greatly by comparison, because taken by itself it is a very solid, beautifully shot production. The filming is breathtaking, with so many lovely touches including the reflection in the water scene and that wonderful final shot of older Leo against the hall and endless lawn. For people who haven't seen the original or read the book this may seem a far better film that the one I have described.
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.
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.
I am, more often than not, left disappointed when my favourite literary classics are adapted for television or the big screen, and while this BBC production of LP Hartley's novel is not perfect, it does better than most.
The drama begins with a crushed, sorrowful looking older Leo (Jim Broadbent) travelling on a train to Norfolk, the scene of his foreign past. He imagines his younger self, (Jack Hollington) who accuses him of being a "Dull Dog." The older Leo then lays the blame for him being this "creature of ashes and cinder" squarely on the shoulders of his younger self. I found it to be a clever, and moving way of beginning the story.
We then travel back fifty years in time to the scorching summer of 1900 and the characters that would haunt Leo into his old age.
Leo spends his holidays at the country manor of his upper-class friend Marcus. (Samuel Joslin) It is here that he meets the beautiful, but manipulative and selfish Marian, (Joanna Vanderham) who he becomes instantly besotted with. He then becomes a postman of sorts, as he delivers love letters between Marian and her bit of rough, the tenant farmer Ted Burgess. (Ben Batt)
Over the course of the summer, Leo feels increasingly uncomfortable and guilty about ferrying these correspondence, which he now knows aren't just "normal letters," back and forth. The engagement of Marian to the landlord, war hero, and thoroughly decent Trimingham (Stephen Campbell Moore) increases Leo's torment even further.
I found it to be well directed, beautifully shot, with picture perfect locations. The performances were excellent throughout, especially from Master Hollington as young Leo. His acting was subtle, natural, intuitive and he had a charismatic presence that you could not take your eyes off of. One to watch out for I would say.
At times it felt a little rushed, especially at the end where Broadbent returns as Leo, Batt as Marian's grandson, and Vanessa Redgrave plays the part of an older Marian. That is just a small complaint though. Overall, I found it to be a very moving adaptation of my favourite LP Hartley novel
The drama begins with a crushed, sorrowful looking older Leo (Jim Broadbent) travelling on a train to Norfolk, the scene of his foreign past. He imagines his younger self, (Jack Hollington) who accuses him of being a "Dull Dog." The older Leo then lays the blame for him being this "creature of ashes and cinder" squarely on the shoulders of his younger self. I found it to be a clever, and moving way of beginning the story.
We then travel back fifty years in time to the scorching summer of 1900 and the characters that would haunt Leo into his old age.
Leo spends his holidays at the country manor of his upper-class friend Marcus. (Samuel Joslin) It is here that he meets the beautiful, but manipulative and selfish Marian, (Joanna Vanderham) who he becomes instantly besotted with. He then becomes a postman of sorts, as he delivers love letters between Marian and her bit of rough, the tenant farmer Ted Burgess. (Ben Batt)
Over the course of the summer, Leo feels increasingly uncomfortable and guilty about ferrying these correspondence, which he now knows aren't just "normal letters," back and forth. The engagement of Marian to the landlord, war hero, and thoroughly decent Trimingham (Stephen Campbell Moore) increases Leo's torment even further.
I found it to be well directed, beautifully shot, with picture perfect locations. The performances were excellent throughout, especially from Master Hollington as young Leo. His acting was subtle, natural, intuitive and he had a charismatic presence that you could not take your eyes off of. One to watch out for I would say.
At times it felt a little rushed, especially at the end where Broadbent returns as Leo, Batt as Marian's grandson, and Vanessa Redgrave plays the part of an older Marian. That is just a small complaint though. Overall, I found it to be a very moving adaptation of my favourite LP Hartley novel
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaJim Broadbent also appeared in the original The Go-Between (1971), his first film role (though an uncredited role).
- ConexionesFeatured in BAFTA Television Awards 2016 (2016)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta