The Portrait of a Lady

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?

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.

It is interesting to watch this series, one of the first British dramatizations of a classic novel, to see how far and how fast the method of filmmaking developed in subsequent years. In comparison with the great work the BBC was doing 10 or even 5 years later, "Portrait of a Lady" definitely seems like it comes out of the stone age of TV drama. There is something very stiff and stilted about this dramatization, though I suspect it is reasonably faithful to the book. First of all, the length is very gruelling; it's been some years since I watched it, but I seem to recall it being about 4 or 5 hours long. In a piece of such length, one suddenly notices the lack of artistry in the film work - most of the scenes are shot with a stationary camera, sort of middle distance, with very little in the way of closeups or angle changes. It is, for all the world, just like watching a stage play on TV, and I suspect that at this early stage, that is precisely how British television approached classic literature. Most of the story takes place indoors, which is rather a relief, as the occasional exterior scene tossed in looks embarrassingly fake.

The acting is good, and it's delightful to see Edward Fox in this series, so young and handsome, but the pacing is glacial. By the time I'd gotten about two-thirds of the way through this series, I realized that the characters were just going to talk and talk, and were never going to DO anything at all. Friends of mine who have read a lot of Henry James assure me that that is exactly what his novels are like, so perhaps the series gets points for fidelity to its origin, but it just doesn't make for very interesting TV.

We picked up the two tape boxed set of this show at a garage sale for a bargain two bucks and started watching it that night. It seemed stiff and stolid until I realiized... The characters are stage acting, with exagerated body language and strong voice projection. Thats understandable when you realize the program was done in 1968, the early days of this sort of TV project. But once you wrap your mind around this fact and start watching it as a stage play rather than a TV drama, it becomes most enjoyable, a classic British drawing room drama. 1968 was almost 40 years ago, yet the program (if not all its performers) has aged well. The technical quality of the colour and image is excellent. The production techniques and sets are, if anything, refreshing in their lack of gimmickry. A confession... This is written after watching only the first of the two tapes. Four hours is a bit much for anything other than a Wagnerian opera. But I eagerly look forward to the second half tonight!

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.