The Portrait of a Lady

Done in the old Tape and Talent style of British adaptations of novels, it is a poignant and absorbing telling of the story. The cast, Richard Chamberlain included, shows what ensemble work is all about.

There used to be a tape of this series. Where is it now?

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.

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.

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.