The Forsyte Saga

To my knowledge this series was the first of its kind, and established the style and tone for all the programs which the term "Masterpiece Theater" now stands for. It is a mystery to me why it seems to have been forgotten completely, and why videos of the series are not available. Its successor, "Upstairs, Downstairs" seems to have usurped The Forsyte Saga's rightful place as the favorite high-toned soaper. Because it was the first, it should be honored for that reason alone.

As of this writing, all 26 episodes of this legendary series are available in the U.S. on DVD through BBC Video via Warner. For the past several evenings, I have been working my way through them, enchanted by its solid craft and thorough execution. What most impresses is the quality of the writing and acting, and how well it all holds up after nearly 40 years. Eric Porter's portrayal of Soames Forsyte is a remarkable creation: Caustic, selfish, sexually predatory, and haunted by sadness, it is among the small screen's great performances. This pillar of society is a suffering outsider and one of the series' most intriguing aspects is how the viewer's sympathies are subtly guided toward Soames and away from Jolyon and Irene as the saga progresses.

Soames may be loathsome in the early episodes, but age and a life of disappointment soften him into an admirable, if wintry, human being. Whereas Kenneth More's Jolyon and Nyree Dawn Porter's Irene seem more and more complacent and sanctimonious, especially in those scenes where Jolyon expounds endlessly on the need for freedom in human relations to a nodding, dewy-eyed Irene. Yet these two goody-goodies forbid their son Jon to pursue his love for Fleur! What is Jolyon, but a breezy, if fundamentally decent, charmer who blunders his way into an inherited fortune? And what is Irene, but a spineless beauty who cannot cope with the depth of Soames' feelings? (But then, who could?)

Other than the scenes where Soames appears, the later episodes relax. Nicholas Pennell is admirable as Michael Mont, the aristocrat with a heart-of-gold who marries the wayward Fleur (Susan Hampshire) and unintentionally causes endless unhappiness. His character underscores Galsworthy's essentially skeptical view of human endeavor. The outstanding cast included some of Britain's best performers of its day. Some went on to bigger things, such as the game Ms. Hampshire, but a review of the cast's vital statistics reveals that many have already passed away. This is their legacy.

Being a huge Galsworthy fan and knowing what an immense popularity this TV-series had claimed worldwide,I was eager to watch it. Widely regarded as one of film history's most faithful(if not the most faithful)adaptation after a literary work,I think that it's perfectly true.This where Galsworthy's genius(one of my favorite writers)is intertwined with B.B.C.'s high professionalism to create a cinematographic masterpiece. Characters,sets,costumes,the care for the historical period,make this film a precise depiction of one world literature's most brilliant literary work as well as of the Victorian age and its aftermath. It's the story of an upper-middle-class family(Galsworthy's newly rich family being actually the source of inspiration)having recently acquired wealth in nineteenth century Britain,their rise running almost parallel with the rise of modern Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. Until 1886,when the story begins(though trough several flashbacks the viewer is let know what happened beginning with 1879),this family's main and virtually only concern is how to make money and to belong to London's better half-subsequently by 1886 almost every member of this family is either a successful lawyer or businessman,major shareholder,landlord or other typically capitalistic entrepreneur.Of course the Forsytes are the typical products of Capitalism,their behavior being characterized by a mixture by thrift and lavish spending(both as a form of wise investing and increasing social influence),snobbery,collecting art and building impressive houses not due to aesthetic reasons but merely as an investment. But there are always several exceptions from this not so bright and profound,however socially very successful mentality:the "young" Jolyon-of the third generation of wealth in this family-who turns a not so respectable love-affair into a not suitable marriage and his cousin Soames who marries the strangely beautiful Irene,a woman from a poor social background,who doesn't love him. Therefore 1886 is not only the year when this family reached its pinnacle of fame and fortune,not only a symbolical year in British history(the year before queen Victoria's golden jubilee),but also the year when the traditional family values of the Forsytes start to crumble. Soames has certainly patriarchal and somewhat rigid views on family life,on a wife's duty,however he's not a tyrant or a pervert in a behavior towards Irene,he certainly worships her,however doesn't know how to express his affection.Irene,on the other hand,seems to me selfish,cold and ungrateful under her extremely beautiful and oversensitive crust-but maybe she isn't superficial,it's just the feminine mystery what makes her so unpredictable and difficult to please. However Soames is a true gentleman,capable of true love and generosity and willing to sacrifice everything to be loved.His tragedy is that he never gets the love he deserves and that not even his vast fortune can't buy love.First Irene,then his second wife and finally Fleur,his daughter,decades later,fail to give him the feeling of truly caring about him and appreciating him.While Fleur is the typical roaring twenties's flapper-spoiled,careless,choosing suitable marriage rather than true love,only for the upkeep of her fortune and status(even her name,along with her behavior remind of another famous twenties's flapper,Fitzgerald's Daisy Buchanan). The characters are faithfully depicted by brilliant,though not necessarily world-famous,actors,besides Soames,Jolyon,Irene and Fleur,also the performances of the old Forsytes being just like someone would imagine after reading the book. Watching this film I understood why it is considered as the best adaptation after a literary work in film history(and,in spite of being a T.v. production and the subject of a rich family widely used in soaps ,it is definitely not a soap-opera,but definitely an art-film).

This 1967 adaptation of Galsworthy is presented in the grand old style of Masterpiece Theatre and is riveting despite its length. At 26 hours, it can afford to spin out the tale in a rather leisurely fashion, thus providing us with a richer and deeper insight into the characters than the more curtailed 2003 version. But it never seems boring. Casting is strong with the possible exception of Irene, played mechanically by Nyree Dawn Porter, who seems more like a Barbie doll than a real woman. The young Susan Hampshire is a delight when she finally arrives on the scene.

Please, oh please, watch this original b/w 1967 British version of The Forsyte Saga instead of the 2002 mini-series. You cannot compare the two; the modern version has terrible casting, lacks charm, and has a terrible script. The actors in that version try but do not reflect the authenticity of the characters in this Galsworthy classic. This 1967 version in contrast has perfect casting, a completely amazing script, multi-dimensional characters, why even the house at Robin Hill is more gorgeous in the original version! The DVD box set you can purchase off Amazon is well worth the price. Buy it before it goes out of print. Do yourself a favor and enjoy this sirloin steak version, instead of the 2002 chopped liver disaster.