The Forsyte Saga

A remake of the 1967 original, the 2002 mini-series boasts some fine performances, especially from Band of Brothers' Damian Lewis as the often unfeeling Soames Forsyte, and Gillian Kearney as June Forsyte (the graveyard scene between these two characters is superb!)

The story follows three generations of the Forsyte family, from about the 1880s to the death of Queen Victoria. There is a nice blend of humour, action, and drama to keep the viewer interested in the proceedings. If you're like me and into family sagas, I recommend watching this, or, if you can't, reading the book by John Galsworthy.

I truly enjoyed this mini-series. I felt that Damian Lewis' portrayal of Soames was truly award-winning. After seeing him in other roles (most notably Band of Brothers), I am even more impressed with his range. I also don't agree with those who felt that the Irene' should have been played by a "prettier" actress. I felt that Gina McKee's true beauty was exposed once you looked at the person inside, exactly as Irene's was. I would recommend this to anyone!

I had never heard of The Forsyte Saga before seeing the mini-series but I enjoyed it so much that I bought the novel, and isn't that really what these adaptations of novels are all about- trying to interest people enough to read the book the movie was based on? I'm glad this version wasn't completely true to the novel considering that so many of the characters in the novel are either underdeveloped or so enigmatic that it's hard to have any kind of feelings about them.It was a stroke of genius to develop Dartie and George into the two jokers of the family, who provide light entertainment when the plot gets a little dark. In defense of Gina McKee, I think the choice to cast her as Irene was a wise one. I can't think of any other actress today who has such an elegant, classy beauty without being "showy" about it and I thought her characterization of Irene was true to how she is portrayed in the book, considering that Galsworthy deliberately made Irene a very shadowy, unreachable figure. Ioan Gruffudd, who, with his dark good looks just seems to be made for these lavish period pieces, was his usual dashing and charming self playing "The Buccaneer" and the rest of the cast put in a fine performance. While I admit these costume drama mini-series aren't to everyone's taste, you can not doubt the painstaking hard work put in by all involved that makes them a cut above the rest.

This second installment lives up to the expectations created by the first series and by the novel itself - To Let. We meet again, with much pleasure, the magnificent cast of the first series (D. Lewis as Soames stands out) and discover the choices that have been made to cast the 4 new main characters : Fleur and Jon Forsyte, Prosper Profound, and Michael Mont. I found the 4 of them to be nearly-ideally suited to their part. May be the actor playing Jon lacked a little bit of brilliance, but he showed a lot of sensibility and looked a lot like his "mother", Irene. The story unfolds with relentlessness but there are also many moving, or funny moments. The films is really faithful to the tone of Galdsworthy and is, all in all, a magnificent achievement. it is as good as the first series, and may be even better. At the end of the 4th episode, we are really sorry to have to wait for the next episodes of the saga, and the lives of Fleur and Michael Mont. Highly recommended to fans of British top quality literary drama.

Comparisons between the 60s version of this splendid work and the latest one are difficult because they were both great. I have really enjoyed the last version especially as regards the performances of Damian Lewis and Gina McKee.

One previous contributor said that he found himself almost liking Soames which 'we were not supposed to do'. Is that right? Galsworthy intended The Forsytes to be representative of the upper middle class with some bad aspects - arrogance, lack of sentiment, conscious always of their respectability - but also with a positive side - sturdy, determined, ambitious, but ultimately concerned with ownership and property. Soames is an extreme example of his kind, to the extent that he regards people - especially his wife - as potential property. Irene, on the other hand, represents the new force which, along with the effects of WWI and the rise of the Welfare State, nationalisation etc will soon overthrow the old order.

Superficially at least, Soames is the villain. He appears to terrorise his wife, physically abuses her and more. However, is there another side to this? Irene marries him quite cynically for materialistic reasons. It's not merely a question of 'not loving' him. He positively makes her flesh creep right from the start. We are given the idea that she is forced to marry him by her stepmother and by her poverty. Force her?? As the story goes forward, we see that she is a strong character - no-one can force her to do anything. Her poverty? She has £50 per annum from her father. This might not seem a lot, but it was about what an artisan earned in a year at that time (on which he was expected to keep a family). Despite his treating her as property, Soames does love Irene in his way and he does try his best to give her what she wants. In return she is openly unfaithful to him, denies him children and even conjugal rights. As regards his bad treatment of her, she certainly returns the compliment in kind. She could be looked on as something of a vampire - she sucks the life force from Soames and old Jolyan and wantonly destroys the happiness of her friend June and Bossiney (though admittedly he goes along willingly). As regards her own son her hatred of Soames tempers her dislike of Fleur so even her son is badly affected by her force of character and neurosis.

I think Galsworthy, as well as writing a simple commentary on Edwardian and Victorian life was also trying to divide his readers into factions - the pro-Soames camp who like the old ways, and the pro-Irene (the 'new woman' camp) who wanted change.

Whatever, I have to congratulate Gina McKee. She carried off that complex character of Irene so well. Her enigmatic Mona Lisa smile, did it display goodness? Or the opposite? I'm still not sure