Cookson Revisited

Last year, I watched my first Catherine Cookson movie based on one of her novels. I made a comparison of Cookson to Dickens in a blog last Fall. Basically, I just did not enjoy the characters or the story, but I waited to make a final judgement call until I'd watched some more. I do know people who love these and have encouraged me that if I watch period dramas I should give them a try. Well, I watched four more Cookson movies in the last two weeks. Has my opinion changed? Not really. They really aren't my cup of tea and even though I can watch a whole lot more of them on Netflix I am probably going to pass on them.

For me, I think these stories are just too violent, they don't contain many characters that I am attracted to and the plots are driven by all the most horrible and low parts of the human experience. It's not that I just need a fluffy Jane Austen plot to enjoy a period drama. For instance, I loved George Eliot's Daniel Deronda as well as Anthony Trollope's How We Live Now. But the Cookson plots go a step too far so that by the time you get to the end you wonder how this can conclude with a satisfying ending. Most often I am left wanting by the finish. Others may like Cookson but as for me I think I'll go back to Dickens and Austen.

Vanity Fair and the Need for the HEA

Okay, I knew from the beginning that watching Vanity Fair would be a mistake. I already knew how it would end and yet I went ahead and hoped.

I'll be the first to admit that I've never read Thackeray's social satire. Honestly, I don't think I could get through it. It would just depress me. I mean look at the subtitle of the book--Vanity Fair: a novel without a hero. Is that right? No hero??

I own the 1998 miniseries starring Natasha Little. I remember watching it the first time and thinking to myself that I wouldn't finish watching if it wasn't for the subplot of Amelia and seeing her attain her Happily Ever After. Becky Sharp is selfish and unlikeable. She had a chance at happiness and she gave it up.

About a year a ago, I went ahead and purchased the Reese Witherspoon version of Vanity Fair. I don't know why. I guess because I love period dramas and I do like Reese and on top of that it was really cheap. It's been sitting on my bookshelf ever since still in it's wrapping and collecting dust ever since.

I've been in the mood for period dramas this week and have already watched the 1982 Scarlet Pimpernel with Jane Seymour, and the 1998 Our Mutual Friend miniseries based on Dicken's romantic novel. So, I went ahead and popped in the 2004 Vanity Fair.

This movie version is a lavish production with beautiful sets and gorgeous costumes. And Reese plays Becky Sharp much more sympathetically than in the previous versions. You can actually like her through most of the film. But just as always it falls apart at the end as you realize there is no way she can ever reach a happily ever after. Tears are running down my face. I'm devastated for her but she could care less as she goes on to entrap her next victim. Quite a depressing film.

It got me to thinking about the whole idea of the HEA or Happily Ever After. Why do we long so much for that ultimate outcome? Even here in watching this latest version of the book I knew it wouldn't end happily but I still wanted it too. I was heartbroken that it didn't. It's like watching the film Titanic for the first time and hoping the boat won't sink and yet you know ultimately that it will. It's an innate need in most of us to find that HEA. We wish for it in our own lives even though this is hardly the most common outcome. And so in our fiction and movies we need that happy fulfillment. Though Vanity Fair is a book meant to make social commentary of society at the time, I believe I can forgo that lesson and read something with a happier ending. I mean, I can read a sad story as well as the next person. I do have almost every Nicholas Sparks novel after all. But the poignancy of the novel needs to make sense--to touch you in a way that it's all going to be all right and a life has been changed for the better.

By the way, today to erase my melancholoy of Vanity Fair I watched the 2002 The Importance of Being Earnest--also with Reese except this one is cute and funny and everyone gets their HEA in the end. That's the way I like it.

Classic Friday: Under the Greenwood Tree

A couple Christmas ago I received a copy of the 2005 film adaptation of Hardy’s novel – Under the Greenwood Tree. It stars Keeley Hawes (well known British actress, Spooks, Ashes to Ashes, and many Period Drama roles as well as she's married to the blue-eyed Darcy, Matthew Macfadyen) as Fancy Day and James Murray (an unknown to me at the time—not any longer—watch Primeval) as Dick Dewey. I shared the enjoyment of this film with my sister who is a Period Drama Junkie like myself. What can I say? We both loved it. And we have now added ‘Dick Dewey’ into our repartee when speaking of favorite Period men. The sensual hand washing scene alone will be spoken of for quite some time. Wonderful characterization of the local people and their quire or choir. And Parson Maybold played by Ben Miles (from the British TV show Coupling) was just terrific. All in all it was a great flick and a well-loved addition to my Period Drama collection even though it was only an hour and a half long. So many of the good ones are mini-series any more.

I enjoyed the film so much I decided to read the book. Now I love reading classic literature: Dickens, Austen, Elizabeth Gaskell, Alcott, and on and on. But I've never been much of a Hardy fan before. This book is supposed to be the first of his Wessex novels when he returned to his family’s country roots. It is a pastoral story that rues the effects of the Industrial Revolution moving into the small country villages. It is also the love story of Fancy Day and Dick Dewey. Now as I read the book, I realized that the film version had veered quite a lot from the original text. I believe the important themes were included, but the plot was altered to what I believe was better than the original text. Sorry to all those Hardy fans but the plot was a bit dull and meandered about. I also disliked Fancy in the book. She was a bit too vain and featherheaded. She was much more likeable and interesting in the film. The one thing I wish they had captured in the film was the character of Parson Maybold. He came across quite pompous in the film but in the book he had a sweet, tender heart. I wonder why they changed this?

It really surprised me that I enjoyed the book less than the film. This was a first. I always love the depth and literary precision of these classic masters but in this instance I was a bit let down by the original. The one thing which remained consistent between the film and the book was Dick Dewy – true blue and very much in love. You gotta love that! I do heartily recommend the film especially if you love Period Drama. The book is a good read too and not overly long. A ‘light’ read for a Hardy novel in both length and content. I only wonder what Mr. Thomas Hardy was thinking when he created Fancy. What were his subtle sentiments toward Victorian womanhood??

How about you? How often has it happened that you liked the film more than the original novel?

Curious about this adaptation. Watch this fan video.