Birdsong

I was expecting much from Birdsong. I had read the book three years ago for my English A Levels course, and found myself utterly transfixed by the poignant and gut-wrenching story. Since then, Sebastian Faulks' Birdsong has become one of my favourite books of all time. This series does have its good parts. It is photographed beautifully, exquisitely even, the scenery is wonderful in the whole part of the story before Stephen goes off to war, I liked the contrast between the lush pre-war scenes and the bleak colour palette of war itself the music is effective in its simplicity and there are two good performances, the scene-stealing Jack Firebrace of Joseph Mawle and the emotionally complex Jeanne of Marie-Josee Croze. Sadly, I never found myself convinced by the story and characters. This is not helped by a script that is largely incoherent, characters that excepting perhaps Jeanne are lifeless cardboard cut-outs(I know they are not likable characters to begin with but still there is a difference between that and the characters having no life at all) and sluggish pacing. I also found Eddie Redmayne and Clemence Posey miscast, Redmayne is handsome certainly but he was also wooden and uncharismatic while Posey has no chemistry with him and looks like twenty years younger than her novelistic counterpart. The story has scenes that are either condensed(naturally considering the time) or almost endlessly stretched out(not so much), but it was the lack of atmosphere and drama that really spoiled Birdsong. The intimate scenes between Stephen and Isabelle weren't that intimate to me as both actors looked in pain during those scenes, and the war scenes due to the poorly rendered battlefields weren't poignant, tense or gut-wrenching enough. Overall, does have some good things such as the beautiful photography, but the pacing and lack of drama made Birdsong rather dull in my opinion, sorry. 5/10 Bethany Cox

I read the book Birdsong (the basis for this series) by Sebastian Faulks many years ago and really enjoyed it, particularly the sections about life in the trenches, which I found very gripping and evocative. Perhaps my memory is playing up, but I seemed to remember that this was the main point of the book, not the romance between Stephen and his french girlfriend, which was the main focus of this disappointing adaptation.

I am amazed how the production team managed to turn such a good book about WW1 into such a dull and plodding romantic drama. The dialogue was stilted, and although I am English and therefore used to the various English dialects, I struggled most of the time to understand what was being said so had to turn the volume up higher than normal. The acting was also poor - involving lots of staring mournfully at each other and simpering. I'm not sure if this was the actors' / director's faults or whether it was such a bad script that there was just no dialogue to work with. I've never watched a drama with so many long silences in it (except maybe the Twilight films); I'm sure this wasn't a feature of the book. I found myself getting very frustrated with the slow pace and kept wanting to reach for the FF button on the remote. I also found the casting of several of the characters very odd - especially the normally excellent Matthew Goode and Eddie Redmayne.

The one redeeming feature of the series was that it looked good.

In summary then, one to avoid and read the book instead.

I rarely review unless I love a movie and feel something has been unfairly rated due to some anomaly. Here I suspect the anomaly is that it will only be fully felt by people who have known something of this these level of intensity of love and death. Our world has become somewhat numbed to these things. I am lucky and unlucky enough to have had a meeting just like theirs and the story and intensity of it touched me very deeply. It is not just a matter of being open enough for these things to happen, but open enough to recognize their significance. And even in the absence of a war, for such a spiritual heart, as in the Bhagavad Gita, life will always be trench warfare on some level.

Though I haven't read the book yet and I also had no idea this was split into two TV-movies. It came out as one single very long movie on DVD in Germany, so I watched it like that. It did appeal to me, especially acting, though some choices seemed weird. For a TV movie it is surprising I reckon that there is nudity. For regular TV I guess, but then again, we're way past that already.

The structure does seem fitting for a novel and it makes more sense in the book form (or at least seems to). Even without having read it, you can do more in the head of a reader than in a film. Still this seems more than decent enough to stand on its own, especially if the viewer is unaware of its source material.

Interesting backlash on this adaptation, this is the trouble when you try and put the subtlety of words in to pictures. I thought it was a great adaptation; I read the book and was pleased they got the main themes in (all bar the third storyline). I remember reading the book and not liking Stephen much and I didn't like him much here either and that continuity was pleasing. Yes some of it failed to get going, I thought the scene with the old lady and her daughter in the book was much more fraught and tense. But you know what, that was me reading into the work, you can't really do that when you are watching it. The graphics were a real weak link, the CGI battlefields were pitiful, lots of emotion as usual a distinct lack of blood or pain! With the centenary of the First World War coming up I can imagine they are holding some of their war cards close to their chest, but they could have put a little more effort into that. I enjoyed the acting and what they conveyed in a short space of time. I would have liked to have seen more character development of the soldiers, but hay we can't have everything. In all I thought it was a worthy piece of drama, and to all those who go on about the oral sex scene being unrealistic. Are you all experts in early 20th Century sexual practises?