Love in a Cold Climate

Nancy was the first to exploit the glittering vein of inside jokes and family legend that's sustained the Mitford industry for over fifty years, and when her two most popular books, the titular "Cold Climate" and the earlier "Pursuit of Love," were "adapted" (sliced and diced and drastically condensed) to fit this stingy two-episode format, there were bound to be a few loose ends. My brilliant wife, a fiction editor by trade, spotted a brief two-character scene that didn't seem to make much sense; it turned out to be a collage of the zingier lines from three different scenes involving two sets of characters and spread out over twenty pages. Do admit, Fanny!

Mitford loyalists will mourn the loss of Uncle Davey; they may also wonder why, say, on the page it's Aunt Sadie who can't talk horticulture with a dinner guest because she prefers to leave such matters to the gardeners whereas on the screen it's daughter Linda who can't identify the soup because she prefers to leave them to the cook.... Still, if the script is a little dodgy, the cast is just about perfect: Alan Bates, as Uncle Matthew, prowls the floor at a deb dance like a Rottweiler on parade; Celia Imbrie is delightfully distracted as Aunt Sadie; Elisabeth Dermot Walsh and Rosamund Pike are charming as lovely, clueless Linda and the all-seeing narrator, Fanny. Special mention goes to Jemima Rooper and Anna Popplewell as sex-mad innocents Jassy and Victoria. The earlier, 8-ep version, still available on disc, has more room for plot material (including Uncle Davey), but the younger characters aren't nearly as well cast.

I loved this show! So much! I was just so disappointed when it ended after only 3 episodes! Broke my heart! Such a good mini-series!

Aside from them not including the characters of Emily (the aunt that actually raised Fanny) and Davey (who plays an even more important part), I think the casting is excellent. Sure Rosamund Pike looks nothing like what Mitford described Fanny as but she does embody the nature of Fanny. I can't think of who better to play Matthew and Sadie but Alan Bates and Celia Imrie. Davey played a very important part in the novels, and in this version they merely lump his part into Lord Merlin; and he was also the one of funniest part of the novels with his hypochondria. They also dismissed the eldest Radlett daughter, Louisa, as really she marries straight off but is the one who had the disastrous coming out ball. I thought it was a fun production nonetheless.

This is just about as good as it gets in costume drama. Even the BBC, which is so good at this sort of thing, got it absolutely right, even though this version ran at a much shorter length than the equally excellent 1980 version. The cast is good enough to eat: no-one strikes a wrong note, and some of the acting is downright fabulous (watch Lady Mondore's emotions shift and change). The period detail is, as one has come to expect, far superior to most other attempts at this period. As for the luscious sets, especially those in Paris — what can one say? Watch for the moment when Lady M., having breakfast in bed, says to Fanny that she married for 'all this' and the camera snaps back to show her, not just in a bedroom, but in one of the most sumptuous rooms you could ever hope to see. Deborah Moggach's adaptation strikes the right note all the way through, even for Nancy Mitford fans. But when will a version of the 1980 serialization be made available???

Having read both of the books that this mini series is based on and recalling the excellent 1980 mini series, I looked forward to this new version with enthusiasm.

I have to say that on the whole I found it very disappointing. It certainly covered the bones of the story, but due to its short length, missed out on much of the humour in the original stories. It certainly looked good, casting was excellent, the period was conveyed very convincingly - but, because virtually none of the characters were properly introduced, I kept wondering "just who is this person". Anyone unfamiliar with the story would have found it confusing most of the time.

This was obviously not a cheap production, what a pity they didn't spend a bit more and do better justice to one of the classics of twentieth century fiction.