Bleak House

Watching this series reminded me of how strongly Dickens has influenced us. Bleak House doesn't have the fame of Great Expectations, Oliver Twist or David Copperfield, but some of the characters and scenes have entered our consciousness forever. Miss Flite and her birds, Mr. Chadband and his wearisome speechifying ("It is the ray of rays, the sun of suns... It is the light of Terewth."), Mr. Skimpole, who would be a fascist if ever he could work up the energy: they are some of our mental furniture. The camera-work is up to the challenge of bringing the verbose story to life, just see the scene of Tulkinghorn's murder with the Roman soldier painted on the ceiling pointing down at the proceedings.

The BBC assembles its casts carefully. Denholm Elliott as Jarndyce and Diana Rigg as Lady Dedlock are excellent, Peter Vaughan is a fine Tulkinghorn, Charlie Drake repulsive as Smallweed, and T. P. McKenna does Skimpole superbly. Suzanne Burden is appropriately self-effacing as Esther.

This version of Bleak House is the best adaptation of a classic novel known to me. The representation of the court of Chancery as a 'character' in the drama is magnificent. The acting is marvellous, from the sinister Tulkinghorn, to the Dedlocks, Smallweed, Crooke, Miss Flyte, and the two young lovers. But it is the spider's web of chancery that holds the whole thing together, and the cinematography is superb. What mistake did the BBC make about copyright that meant that this version could not be seen in the UK on either video or DVD for many years? I tried to find out from them, but faced a stone wall. In the end I got a DVD copy from Canada.

This and the 2005 version can be regarded as complimentary to each other, as each contains elements of the story not present in the other. In general, the 1985 version is strong on BLEAK, and the 2005 version is strong on characterizations. But there is so much more to the novel than even both versions together have given us. For example, the character in the book who is most central to the story is NOT Lady Dedlock, but Esther Summerson -- in the novel, much of the story is told by her in the first person, and it is her goodness, her wisdom, and her selflessness that set up the needed perspective to the victim vs. victimizer nature of many of the other characters. But really, the problem is that the book is on such a vast scale, that watching either version is like listening to a 15-minute version of a Bruckner symphony. Ideally, some day someone will just go ahead and take the entire novel as it is and use it as the screenplay.

"Bleak House" (1985) is a wonderful BBC adaptation of the novel by Charles Dickens. The movie was made for TV, so it does well on the small screen. It's long (8 episodes in 6 1/2 hours), but even that much screen time isn't enough for this novel, which is filled with plots and sub-plots, and many, many characters.

As would be expected from the BBC, the acting is outstanding, right down to the smallest cameo roles. Denholm Elliott is excellent as John Jahndyce, and Suzanne Burden is superb as Esther Summerson.

Even though Esther is the real protagonist of the novel, for me the most interesting character is Lady Honoria Dedlock. Lady Dedlock is played by Diana Rigg. Of course, Rigg was renowned for her beauty, but at age 47, I thought she was somewhat old for the part. (Lady Honoria was married to an older man, but she probably was 34 or 35 in the context of the novel.) Gillian Anderson, at age 35, played the role in the 2005 Bleak House. Anderson was impossibly beautiful and elegant as Lady Honoria. So, in my mind, that's what Lady Honoria looks like, and Riggs just can't reach that level. However, she's a fine actor, and does an excellent job.

All directors love to show us 19th Century urban England's mud, filth, smoke, and gloom. However, I've never seen these things portrayed so effectively as in this movie. You don't get the feel that you're watching a film set. You feel as if you're watching real life, which was certainly abysmal for the poor in that era. I never had the sense that the extras were waiting for their turn to play their part at just the right moment. Those scenes all looked organic and unrehearsed. (Of course, we know that the extras were, indeed, waiting for their turn. However, my point is that you don't feel this when you're watching the film.)

David Copperfield has a basically simple plot, and is readily adapted to the screen. Bleak House has an extraordinarily complex plot, and adapting it must be an extraordinarily difficult challenge. However, we have the good fortune to have two great versions to view. If I had to choose one over the other, I think I'd go with this 1985 version. The beauty is that you don't have to choose. See them both!

This is quite difficult to come by because it is not on streaming anywhere in the UK so I had to buy the DVD (old school). I had already seen the 2005 Bleak House but despite its length and thoroughness I didn't find it as clear and as engaging as I would like so wanted to watch this version which is the only other currently available. This one is a little shorter than the more recent version but I found this one extremely impressive. I watch a lot of novel adaptations and TV period stuff from 1970 onwards, and this is one of the best adaptations of the 1980s for sure. Dickens' plot, which is multifaceted and complicated to follow, is presented in this version with really impressive clarity. I found this one made much more sense from a plot perspective than the more modern version, all the characters motivations were clearer and the scenes logically followed on from each other. The pacing is excellent for a production of this time which can tend to be rather slow but this was genuinely engaging all throughout. Casting was pretty decent all round, pretty similar to the 2005 version which definitely took inspiration from this. But Dame Diana Rigg as Lady Deadlock was superb. She exudes so much charisma and talent. I found it strange when watching the 2005 version that the novel is called Bleak House because the a lot of that version takes in place in Chesney Wold which is also presented as being the more literally bleak house. But in this version it made more sense to me why the novel is called Bleak House, because Esther Summerson is the main character and the her life at Bleak House is the centre of the novel and the current that runs through right till the end. This wasn't so clear in the 2005 version there was too much jumping around and they made too much use of Charles Dance as Tulkington to make it dramatic and suspenseful, where I think the ratio and proportionality of each of the plot lines was better in this version and made the overall story feel more cohesive and complete because of it.