The Go-Between

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.

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.

'The past is a foreign country: They do things differently there.'

What a great opening line and it belongs to the novel which this is adapted from. It got me immediately hooked.

What also helped was an astonishing performance from actor Jack Hollington who played Leo.

The film starts with Leo as an old man (Jim Broadbent) going back to revisit the summer of 1900 which had a profound effect on his life.

As a 12 year old boy he went to stay with a well to do school friend Marcus and his family, it becomes apparent that Leo is from a more modest background and has to adjust to a society of privilege and wealth.

Leo is struck by the beautiful Marian who is due to be engaged to Viscount Trimingham (Stephen Campbell Moore) and therefore set herself up for life. However he has been disfigured in the Boer War and Marian has been having a passionate affair with tenant farmer Ted Burgess (Ben Batt smoldering like a younger Rufus Sewell for all his worth.)

Leo is used by Marian and Ted as a go-between carrying secret messages between the two, yet he also used to convey messages between Trimingham and Marian.

Leo realises even at his tender age that the affair between lowly Ted and Marian is doomed and also he has been used by Marian. Her kind acts to get new clothes for him had ulterior motives.

It was a fast moving adaptation, very much cut down from all the flab. It kept the class divisions subdued, even Trimingham a war veteran aims to have cordial relations with his tenants in the estate but definitely wants to win the cricket match against his farmers.

Lesley Manville gives an icy performance as Mrs Maudsley, Marion's mother who suspects what she has been up to but hell bent on her marrying Trimingham. Even Trimingham suspects she is not entirely his hence why he would like Ted to join the army.

I have not seen the 1971 film version but I guess seeing Julie Christie and Alan Bates together again would probably had taken my mind back to their earlier pairing in Far from the Madding Crowd which kind of has a few superficial similar plot elements.

There is a coda at the end as the older Leo encounters the older Marion (Vanessa Redgrave) which rounds off the story. Leo however is still haunted by the past.

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.

The acting of Jack in this movie is outstanding - he should be at the top of the credits.

I also found this adaptation to be far superior to the original, much more attention grabbing.

There is a danger of believing that originals are always the best but this is not always the case.

Lesley Manville portrayed the mother superbly and captured the horrible nature of many women of her age and position - people who did absolutely nothing for a living.

10/10