The Mystery of Edwin Drood

"The Mystery of Edwin Drood" was Dickens's last novel, famous for being left unfinished at his death, so producing a film adaptation is always going to be a speculative undertaking, as nobody is quite sure how Dickens intended it to end, although there are a number of theories.

The title character is a young man from the cathedral city of Cloisterham, a thinly-disguised version of Rochester. (The film was shot on location in that city). The plot revolves around the strange triangular relationship which develops between Edwin, his fiancée Rosa Bud, and his uncle John Jasper. Edwin has been engaged to Rosa since they were both children, as a result of provisions in their father's wills, but neither seems to have much passion for the other. Jasper, the opium-addicted choirmaster of Cloisterham Cathedral, is secretly in love with Rosa, although she does not return his love. A further development comes with the arrival in Cloisterham of the twins Neville and Helena Landless from Ceylon. In this adaptation they are of mixed race, although their racial origins are not indicated in the original book. Neville finds himself attracted to Rosa, and he and Edwin fall out with one another. Another important character is the clergyman Septimus Crisparkle.

The "mystery" to which Dickens alludes in his title is the sudden disappearance of Edwin. It is presumed that he has been murdered, although no body is ever found. The novel in its unfinished state offers no definitive solution to the mystery, so the writers of this version have had to come up with their own. (I won't say what it is).

The film was made for BBC television, and falls within the long British tradition of visually attractive costume drama, a tradition which is even longer on television than it is in the cinema. (Feature films of this type were rare before the late sixties and relatively uncommon before the eighties). It is a good example of ensemble acting so I won't single out any individual performances. Like a number of recent adaptations of the classics it is used to put over a modern perspective on history; the Landless siblings are used to raise some points about colonialism and racism in Victorian society. (Edwin's initial dislike of Neville is partly based on race prejudice).

It is, of course, anyone's guess whether the new ending is the one Dickens intended; literary buffs may suspect that it is not. The film-makers have, however, at least come up with something that makes sense on its own terms and comes across as a seamless whole; it would be difficult for anyone not acquainted with the novel to guess which parts of the story are Dickens's own and which the invention of the scriptwriter. The film is required viewing for any Dickens enthusiast and an entertaining period drama for anyone else. 7/10

Being something of a Dickens purist, I very rarely watch new adaptations of his novels, television or otherwise, and after being badly disappointed by the BBC's 2011 soap-opera-like adaptation of "Great Expectations", I didn't exactly have high hopes for this film; in fact, I didn't even catch it when it first aired on PBS. After reading the novel (or half of one, anyway), I really wanted to see this and find out just what kind of ending the filmmakers came up with. I was astonished at just how excellent it was, and would rank it as one of the best productions of Dickens I've seen since "David Copperfield".

"The Mystery of Edwin Drood" was Charles Dickens' last novel; he was only able to complete half of it before he died in 1870. He intended his story to be a thriller, requesting that his publisher accept the book in twelve parts instead of the usual twenty. That being said, the film reflects that ideal in spades, clipping along at a nice pace that rivals even the best modern-day mystery novel and incorporating a healthy dose of psychological drama for extra suspense. The dramatic tension is there from the very first scene and doesn't let up until the end credits roll. Highly atmospheric and oftentimes chilling, it would be hard to imagine a more ideal production.

The second half falters a little bit, owing to the the lack of true Dickensian dialogue and plotting, but the numerous twists and turns and surprising character development never really feel as though he couldn't have written them himself. Some people might dislike the ending, but I found it unexpected and very appropriate. Dickens wasn't above resorting to using the "deus ex machina" device himself, so who's to say it doesn't belong here? While he probably had a different though equally surprising finale in mind, the one devised by screenwriter Gwyneth Hughes isn't exactly shabby.

The only real reservation I had about this film was that it would feel too "modern". To my delight, the historical side of the film is never once questioned: there's never a single moment over the course of all two hours where you don't feel that you're truly in 19th century England. The fact that it was actually filmed in Rochester, Kent, the place where Dickens based the fictional town of Cloisterham upon, gives it a whole new layer of authenticity.

I was also quite impressed with the cast. Not only do they look their parts, but they also perform them flawlessly, giving real yet Dickenesque portrayals. Freddie Fox is entirely wonderful as Edwin Drood, literally embodying the phrase "laissez-faire". Tamzin Merchant is a steady yet perhaps a little too pert Rosa Bud, but that would be my only complaint. The true star of the show is Welsh actor Matthew Rhys, who just lives and breathes the dark, brooding, obsessive opium-smoker John Jasper. He brings out the character's passive-agressiveness to perfection, and his intense, emotional performance will keep you on the edge of your seat.

In short, I absolutely loved BBC/Masterpiece's 2012 adaptation of "The Mystery of Edwin Drood", and would recommend it to anyone as one film not to be missed.

Yes, "Mystery" does vary in tone from other works by Dickens but not nearly to this extent. The whole movie plays like a sweaty dream induced by a night of heavy eating and drinking. It utterly lacks the feeling of concrete reality that Dickens somehow evokes even as he spins ludicrous tales.

Not a single character feels like a real person with a real life beyond what appears on screen and a full range of emotions. There's never a hint that the choirmaster runs a choir, or that the lawyer has ever handled a case or that the schoolgirl has any studies.

The very talented Matthew Rhys is wasted on a role with only two notes, hatred and self pity. But it's still the deepest role in the show. None of the other characters has more than one characteristic and many of them have none at all. Oddly, despite this lack of personality (or perhaps because of it) all of the characters are unlikable. There's no one to root for in the story.

To make up for the lack of character, there is mood, lots of mood, hitting you in the face again and again with dream sequences and funny camera angles and music that is supposed to make us fearful in moments that are not scary to anyone older than 5.

The production isn't even technically competent in a way you'd expect of the BBC. Rhys, who is great with accents and can surely do an English one, frequently reverts to his native Welsh. In one scene, they say the Lord's prayer as "Our Father, Who art..." rather than "Which art," which would have been used in Victorian England. It's a miracle a car did not drive through the background in one of the scenes.

The worst adaptation of Dickens I have ever seen.

Some people seem bothered because two of the major characters are non-white. Their problem.

I found the characters all very convincing.

I was also impressed by the way they gave an entertaining and surprising ending to the various mysteries.

Quite possibly the ending Dickens had in mind

THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD is the second of two Dickens adaptations that the BBC showed over the New Year 2011/2012. The good news is that it's a damn sight better than GREAT EXPECTATIONS, being noticeably more 'Dickensian' in feel, with plenty of amusingly monkeyed supporting characters. The hilarious scenes involving churchyard urchin Deputy are alone better than anything in that other awful production.

My viewing of this one benefited from not having read the famously incomplete story that Dickens died during writing. It's split into two instalments, and the first does admirably well in setting up the chessboard of characters: Matthew Rhys (BROTHERS AND SISTERS) is great as the sweaty and sinister Jack Jasper. Kudos too for the familiar character actors fleshing out more minor roles: Julia McKenzie, Ian McNeice and Alun Armstrong all acquit themselves well, and Rory Kinnear (FIRST MEN IN THE MOON) seems to be going from strength to strength.

What a shame, then, that the second part just doesn't hold up. It's clear that this segment wasn't written by Dickens, instead completed by the scriptwriter. The ending is particularly bad, hinging around one massive plot hole/contrivance (a character appearing from nowhere at just the right time) that it's impossible to ignore. Way too many twists are attempted in this latter part so that it feels muddled and ludicrous, nothing like Dickens at all.