Byron

Let me start by stating that I've read most of Byron's letters, a number of biographies as well as his poetry. The screenwriter, whose work on adapting Persuasion I liked very much, did well by the conflicted, contradictory character of the "bad, mad and dangerous to know" Byron. The script drew on the title characters own works, letting him speak what he wrote - and he was a marvelous letter writer, much better than he was a poet. This film was much more faithful to the facts than the average biopic - frighteningly so, given what it shows about Byron's scandalous character and life.

Jonny Lee Miller, although obviously older than the character he portrays, gives us the whole chameleon, the demure new star in the writing establishment, the would be politician, the society "bad boy". Witness the poet with his hair up in curlers for a new side to the Byron everyone thinks they know. My ideal actor for the part would have been the young Robert Vaughn, but Miller gives us the genuine pain in the ass quality the part needs.

What particularly interested me in this version was what got left out. Probably the most famous part of the Byron story is the summer he spent with Shelley and his menage, which resulted in the publication of "Frankenstein." It has been amply treated elsewhere, in the excellent "Bride of Frankenstein," Ken Russell's god-awful "Gothic", and the even worse "Haunted Summer". The screenwriters chose to leave it out, concentrating instead on the debacle of Byron's marriage and his final redeeming attempt to assist the cause of Greek liberation from the Turks.

In between these two was the other major part of Byron's life, the many years he spent in Italy. While the scandalous parts were shown, it might have been interesting to show something of his attempts to help liberate Italy from the Austrians, which led him ultimately to his death in Greece.

Overall, though, I found this movie an absorbing account of a life ill-spent, full of fine acting in all the minor parts. I'm not sure, however, exactly how it would work to someone without a basic knowledge of the Byron saga, in all its deplorable, lunatic, and muddled variety. The life of Byron simply doesn't lend itself to smooth storytelling with a lot of sexy bits.

This BBC production on George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, isn't about the works of the renowned English poet and satirist, known widely as Lord Byron. Rather, its focus is on the life of the man. As such, it seems to do a very good job of showing a conflicted and tormented life that Byron lived. This is the story of a tortured soul who wrote about his own conflicts and failure to find fulfillment in pleasure. And it is about a witty, talented thinker and writer who could give us such classical satire as "Don Juan."

I think a passage from the Encyclopedia Britannica describes well the varying views on Byron's place in letters. "Renowned as the 'gloomy egoist' of his autobiographical poem, "Childe Harold's Pilgrimage" (1812-18), in the 19th century, he is now more generally esteemed for the satiric realism of "Don Juan" (1819-24)."

It was long ago that I read "Don Juan" and perhaps some small parts of other works or letters. So, I appreciated the review by Ginger Johnson (3 December 2005) who gave some information and points about the film as it depicted Byron's life.

With the reviews I've read as of the time of my writing, I am surprised that no one has commented on Byron's background and upbringing. His is a classic tale (if, indeed, one can use the term in this context) of a broken home in childhood, with an abusive, negligent and then absent father. As a boy, he and his mother were a low-income family, and then at the age of 10 he had great wealth thrust upon him by inheritance. He grew up without discipline or responsibilities. He was extremely self- centered and selfish – what we might call "spoiled" today.

Why is this worth pondering? Because, had he grown up in a healthy home with loving parents and some direction, there's a good chance that Bryon's life would not have been so tragic and short. And, we might have had the pleasure of more literary treasures today.

The film covers mostly his last few years with his adultery, heavy drinking, and constant pursuits of pleasure amidst his travels. I agree that the acting was very good by all. The direction and technical aspects were all quite good. And, while it is a good depiction of the life of Lord Byron, I can't say that I enjoyed the film as entertainment. Nor could I enjoy watching it time and again, as one reviewer says he does. As reviewer Ginger Johnson noted, because Byron's life was "ill-spent," the film isn't a joy to watch. I can watch films about tragedies, injustices and other subjects that may be edifying or educational in some sense, but that often are not enjoyable entertainment.

The life of Lord Byron was a tragedy. He died at 36, a tormented, conflicted soul, trying to help a cause he thought worthy. I think this film rightly does not celebrate Byron or his life. Rather, it laments the great loss for what might yet have been. Therein is the tragedy.

I find myself disagreeing with a previous reviewer. Byron was indeed a beast, apparently, but because Miller plays him as a damned beast, I found myself sympathetic toward the character.

I thought the casting was good, and especially liked "Lady Caroline"'s insanity -- what a hairdo! Lovely costuming. "Shelley" was excellent, too. He seemed soulful, half-crazed, and damned as well. Weren't all the Romantics...?

And Vanessa Redgrave, of course, was marvelous. One could actually imagine how, if there "had been fewer years between (them)," it might have been a very short dinner, indeed.

Inner-City High School English Teacher Central Valley, California

I did not know much about Byron before seeing this BBC production with Jonny Lee Miller as Byron. I watched it with a university professor who teaches Byron and who is quite difficult to please when it comes to such productions. We were both nailed right to the end and didn't find anything in the film either superfluous, clumsy or inaccurate. For such a short adaptation, it covered the most essential side of Byron's character without judging the man. The casting was perfect and Jonny Lee Miller's performance was marvellous. His beautiful face had the innocence and yet his diction carried the weight of Byron's all time cynicism and detachment to all things " innocent". I highly recommend everyone to see this film, because, I for one have since plunged myself into reading Byron and Shelly thanks to the compelling way in which Jonny Lee Miller portrayed Byron. This was infinitely more enjoyable and ultimately more useful for a non literary person such as myself than several documentaries I had seen of Byron previously. I only wish the film had been longer with some mention of Byron's extraordinary involvement with Armenia and Armenian language as well.

After all, the adequate way of judging such a film is by how much it influences one in instructing oneself further on the subject or how one's own preconceived views are put into question. That is precisely what this film did to me.

This is the only film depiction of Byron I've seen that attempts to portray him as the clever, funny man that he was rather than some cartoon goth with a big floaty cloak, eyeliner and an evil, reverberating laugh. Other films tend to be simple, self-indulgent perpetuations of Byron's partially self-made myth and this film is the only one I have seen so far that shows something of what was beneath: Regency society seen through Lord Byron's eyes as he rips the piss. Jonny Lee Miller carries off the parallel aspects of Byron's personality with aplomb, making him smug and petulant while unavoidably charismatic and likable. Of course it's still all conjecture, as is emphasised at the start of the film, but as far as Byron films go, there's nothing out there to touch this.