The Portrait of a Lady

It is true that the style of this production seems very dated now, but it was an immense success in the UK when it was first shown. Richard Chamberlain was at the time chiefly famous for the Dr Kildare series, and scarcely thought of as an actor. But his intensely moving performance as Ralph Touchett was a revelation, and received the highest praise from the critics. Television stars of the time, when they attempted something more ambitious, talked about 'doing a Richard Chamberlain'. Probably as a result of his performance, soon afterwards he played Hamlet on stage and on TV.

It is highly recommended watching these series together with reading the novel. The story is basically indoors so it has the atmosphere of a play. However the book contains some outdoor activities in London, Florence and Rome. They were missed completely. Because of this the movie doesn't come alive as for instance 'A room with a view' does which has basically the same settings. Much attention is given to interior decorating and costumes. They are worth watching on their own. In close up scenes it was visible that large amounts of grime were there. That gave even more a sense of watching a play. In the end a crucial scene was completely lost in the movie that I won't spoil. For me Pansy was the true hero of the movie more so than in the book because of her acting so wistful.

Shot in a basic TV soap opera style, this adaptation of James' novel has some definite advantages over Jane Campion's misguided film version. For one thing, the BBC's 4-hour running time allows for more of the novel to make it onto the screen, without boredom ever rearing it's ugly head. Also, the character of Isabel emerges as something more than a feminist-style victim here, which is truer to James' intent. This Isabel is responsible for her mistakes and is willing to acknowledge it. And the characters of Ralph, Lord Warburton, and Gilbert have more depth.

Unfortunately, the direction is rather stilted in this version, and the performances are variable. Susannah Neve plays most all her scenes as Isabel in exactly the same forthright, unshaded way, which becomes very wearisome after a while. And her manner as an actress misses the character's vulnerability - it's hard to believe this Isabel could be bullied by anyone, including Gilbert Osmond. But she does command your attention when necessary.

Best are Edward Fox as Warburton, Beatrix Lehmann and Alan Gifford as her Aunt and Uncle, and the marvelous Kathleen Byron (remember her as the mad nun in "Black Narcissus"?) who easily steals every scene she's in as the Countess Gemini. Richard Chamberlain is charming and intelligent (though never moving) as Ralph, even though you never really believe he's all that sickly. James Maxwell does well enough by Osmond (and is a big improvement over the reptilian John Malkovich in the film).

Rachel Gurney as Madame Merle is very arch and obvious in a role Barbara Hershey later played so beautifully. At the bottom are Sarah Brackett, whose Henrietta Stackpole is worthy of a college play, and Ed Bishop who is a very wooden Caspar Goodwood.

If you're looking for a reasonable dramatic adaptation of James' dense novel, this will do well enough until something better comes along.

I just finished this novel last month, and I was expecting BBC to stay very close to the novel. While it played through most of the novel, it left out a KEY scene between two characters that really MAKES the novel and would have MADE the movie. So, I was a bit disappointed.

I did think Richard Chamberlain made a wonderful Ralph. He was so very lovable. I also thought the actress who played Mdme Merle was excellent. Isabel's voice was a bit annoying, but I got used to it with time. She was a beautiful woman. The man cast as Osmond was disappointing to me. I thought John Malkovich in the newer version was much better (almost TOO evil though).

The movie was also incredibly slow. I got through it, and it did move me in the end (Although the ends too abruptly, in my humble opinion. It leaves out too much at the end!); but I think I like the newer version much better.

First and foremost, I must praise the screenplay by Jack ('I, Claudius') Pulman, which captures James' world so perfectly. James has a remarkably unsentimental view of his characters, presenting his 'heroes' and 'villains' in equally fascinating shades of grey. Beatrix Lehmann and Kathleen ('Black Narcissus') Byron are marvellous as two of the 'good' characters who take no trouble to be liked (cf Rachel Gurney's charming Madame Merle)- perhaps James Maxwell's 'villain' needs to be a little more charming if we are not to take Isabel for a fool. Perhaps also Suzanne Neve is a little opaque as Isabel - but that's almost the point. Richard Chamberlain and Edward Fox are both excellent as her lordly suitor and sickly cousin and benefactor respectively. True, the studio-bound video camerawork looks dated - this was a very early colour production - and I quickly stopped remarking on it. And as a James fan who's sat through numerous glossy film adaptations which got nowhere near his wonderfully ambiguous heart, the reissue of this version on BBC Video is a cause for celebration - I've watched it at least three times, and enjoyed it more each time. Can we now have Pulman's 'The Golden Bowl', please?