The Mezzotint

Ghost stories for Christmas on the BBC, a tradition within a tradition of the festive ghost story, whilst also continuing the tradition of the BBC literary period piece adaptation.

'The Mezzotint' has wins and losses, pluses and negatives aplenty within such a short duration and knowing that the source material was one of the shorter short ghost stories by M. R. James and seeing that this was evidently filmed in midwinter there is the definite suggestion that the BBC is just barely keeping this tradition alive: in summation a very limited production once again just like the last few instalments in this tradition.

There are definitely points to complement: there is a sense of calm before the storm which gradually has an intrusive and unwelcome force batter it into fear and loathing; the mood of a small cabal of scholarly friends is pertly pointed out; and the internal worryings of the protagonist are well played out.

However there are several factors to set against these wins: a ghost story requires a mood and a tone to be established, this is done by authenticity and sincerity in setting out the environment of the tale. By this method the mundane must be mundane, consistent and settled, in order for the implicit horror to disjoint the audience.

'The Mezzotint' frequently fails this: with its knowing references and pointed dialogues, it's broadly written supporting characters, bizarre casting choices and it's incongruous insistence that interwar English-British scholarly gentleman would play rounds of golf in a cold February as a recreational pursuit.

The first five minutes are stodgy and clumsy and the climax offers up explicit monster frighteners rather than implicit personal horror through manifest fear.

Overall therefore I consider this to be a middling effort that would require considerable rewriting, different production and/or recasting to reconstitute it's authentic ambiance and thereby develop naturally to a satisfactory dread.

Some of the acting and directing is good and the sound design and mix are adequate and the cinematography is well lit both indoors and outdoors but there is nothing really exceptional offered in any of these areas.

An average 5/10 rating from me for a piece that had a superficial affinity to the ghost story but failed to deliver the guts by misplacing it's attachment to sincerity and an authentication in its setting forth of the tale and which then chose an explicit climax to end on.

I also wonder about the continuing existence of this BBC Christmas ghost story tradition when it offers up declining output and evidently diminishing productions.

I love M. R. James stories so I'm a fan of Ghost Stories for Christmas and up until now I've always been annoyed whenever I've read any criticism of these adaptations that amounted to "all the best stories have been done." It isn't the stories to blame, it's the filmmakers. Ash Tree is just as creepy as Whistle, for instance. And Casting the Runes, a great story, was adapted poorly. The Mezzotint has always been a favorite story of mine and while it has the potential to be a first rate adaptation the BBC dropped the ball here.

The script here is largely okay. It doesn't try to over write James' story and add too much unnecessary material, but it's at its worst when it does.

The story: an art dealer comes across a mezzotint printing of an old house. Each time he looks at it he sees something different. A story is slowly unfolding with each successive viewing. There is a creepy figure stalking toward the house. Next, a ground floor window is opened. Meanwhile the lead's also preoccupied with uncovering his own family history, an investigation which ultimately involves the very house depicted in the mezzotint.

There a few problems, one of them now all too familiar to tv and movie audiences. Picture a writer's room in LA or London, doesn't matter which, congratulating each other on their sermonizing to the dumb, backwards half of their audience and virtue signaling to the rest and you'll know what I mean. Early in the script a few characters (stuffy men doing stuffy men things like drinking scotch, smoking pipes, and playing cards) out of nowhere debate whether or not women should be given degrees at college, and they do so in the same way a mother who just found a joint in her kid's bedroom might hamfistedly launch into a "gateway drug" lecture at the first available opportunity. There is no debate, actually: one of the lead's guests says it's not tradition and the other says who cares about tradition. Funnily enough the latter, an Asian gent, even asks "what the devil has changed here in the past 500 years?" I guess the producers of this want us to think he's a bit soft? Of course, his whole attitude is very similar to those of certain keyboard warriors of a certain political religion-cocky, self-righteous, dogmatic. In a saner world this would be a critique of this new archetype: the "I'm correct because the script says so, logic is evil if it doesn't support my 'self-evident' conclusions" type of character.

I'm not against women pursuing higher education, I doubt anyone watching this is, but I am against reducing the subject to such an absurd, facile degree that it should seem as obviously wrongheaded to a person 100 years ago as it does to a person today-it robs the scene of a great deal of atmosphere and cultural context. It just seems like an impudent rebuke of M. R. James, the artist whose material these people are using, because he was against integrating the sexes at college. Bizarrely, the filmmakers actually seem to confuse the issue: the question of integrating the sexes is very different than whether women should be given degrees. Anyway, the lead agrees that women should not get degrees and that's that. So out of left field does this come a viewer could only conclude that the director had no faith in the actors or set and costume designers to sell the fact that this is a period piece. "Look, we're in the past! These aren't just 21st century toffs or hipsters, we promise." That is until, after a few scares, towards the end of the film the lead randomly announces he's changed his mind, that "one must look to the future...not the past." If they wanted to convey the idea that looking to the past for answers may be detrimental, they could have hitched it to a better wagon than women-attending-college. Unless the idea is supposed to be that the past is totally and always bad. And also self-evidently so. Which is beyond wrong and stupid.

This really is a quibble. The filmmakers might see these two short scenes as the key to the story but if they were excised the film would be improved. There are bigger, more fundamental problems that really hurt The Mezzotint. First and foremost of which is the direction or/and the acting. The lead actor is quite good and appropriately understated. The three awkward performances are:

1) There is a maid and she has one scene where she's supposed to be frightened after seeing the Mezzotint and the actress may as well be on a community theater stage hamming it up so the back row feels they've gotten their monies worth.

2) The lead consults a family history researcher-a woman, you see, because they realized they'd only have one female character otherwise and a maid at that-just stepped in from a role on Doctor Who. As if her characterization and manner of speaking weren't goofy enough they saddled the poor actress with an extremely cheap-looking wig that makes her pitiful and strange instead of fun and strange.

3) The toffiest of the lead's Stuffy Men Crew is Toast's roommate. And he acted this part just the same as his character in that comedy. I like him in Toast but he doesn't fit here. Maybe it was a casting mistake but the director sure doesn't get a different performance from him-if he even tried. Taken togrher with the zany old lady you must assume he was going for camp.

Another problem is a dropped subplot. One of the lead's friends was going to photograph the mezzotint so they could track the changes. Fun idea. Nothing came of this except one quick scene of him developing film in a darkroom that did nothing for the story.

Speaking of camp, I think the director would have gotten a more camp product if he'd played it straight. Something about the old GSFC productions is effectively creepy. And they're a bit camp, too. The older ones are rich with atmosphere. These newer ones may be in high definition but they're very low in texture. Maybe it has something to do with the old film and lighting processes? Why can a similar look not be achieved today! This looks like any old cheap soap. A few shots are nice, but they're not enough.

All in all, they still told a good story-despite their best efforts-there's a cool and creative ending, and a nice creature; it's a very watchable short film. It could have been a heck of a whole lot better with a more thoughtful approach that respected the source material and the writer of that source material, as well as the world he lived in. There are so many James experts they could have consulted to help shape the story and the look of the picture. Hubris, I guess, got in the way.

As for where this one ranks with the other latter day productions of Ghosts for Christmas: better than 2018's promising yet way too cheaply produced Dead Room, maybe on par with 2019's Martin's Close, but not as good as 2013's The Tractate Middoth.

Maybe they should move on to another writer? If they want to stick with a double initialed writer, there's always H. R. Wakefield. Lucky's Grove would be perfect-it's even a Christmas Story. Although he's more "problematic" to feminists than James is! It's almost 2022, you can't produce entertainment for entertainment's sake-if your source material doesn't have a political message, or you can't be arsed to find it, bludgeon your audience over the head with one.

The Mezzotint's fumbling of the period calls to mind Orwell:

"History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."

Mark Gatiss adapts another M R James ghost story for BBC4.

Set in academia in what looks like the Edwardian era. Edward Williams (Rory Kinnear) is a rather stuffy university curator. He receives a mezzotint to add to his university museum's collection.

It looks like an ordinary picture of a house. Yet strangely things are pointed out to Edward that he did not previously notice such as moonlight. Then there seems to be a sinister figure. Parts of the picture just keeps changing.

Edward and his circle of friends look for a rationale explanation. Eccentric Mrs Ambrigail (Frances Barber) provides a diverting explanation of a hanged poacher who vowed to destroy a family that embroils Edward into it.

As always Gatiss has to work wonders with a small budget. It is very atmospheric and there are nods to the Japanese movie Ringu remade as The Ring in the USA.

Robert Bathurst goes a little hammy but he is no match for Barber.

This is an amazing episode of a series with nine other episodes, three more of which are scheduled on my local PBS station. I wasn't expecting much, but started to watch and my attention was immediately captured. The story began slowly but built until realRealREAL dread was manifestly present. I'm not much for ghost and supernatural stories; when I do my daily programming of my DVD, I'm always amazed at the number of movies with those topics: malevolence, evil, and monsters-of-the-mind are much-too-much present. However, the subtlety and fabulous acting of all the cast lends a believability to the film. Then when I saw that it was written and directed by Mark Gattis, whose work on the Cumberbatch Sherlock makes it (arguably) the best Holmes EVER, I understood why it is soooooooooooooooo good. Watch it.

Superb 30 minute BBC production, genuinely creepy and a great, spooky yarn! The BBC have produced a multitude of these short plays/movies over many years, however, they seem to be in rapid decline in recent years.