The Portrait of a Lady

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.

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.

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.

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!