Martin's Close

Mark Gatiss has adapted another M R James ghost story for Christmas. Although BBC4 has had its budgets slashed and they announced several years ago they would make no new dramas.

Gatiss ensures that BBC4 do make new dramas even if it is on a micro budget. He even coaxes Peter Capaldi to make an appearance as the trial prosecutor.

There is a present day narrator who tells a story of the hanging judge Jeffreys. However in 1684 he was once involved in a trial of John Martin that had people spooked.

Martin was accused of murdering an innocent Anne Clark. Innocent is a loose word for slow. It is unclear why Martin was attracted to Clark. He was engaged to a pretty woman with prospects. He would get a large dowry and would be set for life. Yet he wooed the frumpy Clark and met up with her several times. Pretty soon, his engagement ended and Martin blamed Clark for his misfortunes.

However although Martin is accused of killing Clark, her spirit remains. There has been some kind of sightings of her. Even Martin sees a strange vision in the courtroom.

Gatiss only uses a few sets, he keeps it sparse. A small room acts as the courtroom very much in keeping with the period. It is more eerie than chilling. There is very little by way of jump scares but there is an unsettling atmosphere.

I like the idea that ghost stories and Christmas are intertwined and I was looking forward to this version of M.R James' story written and directed by Mark Gatiss. I watched "The Dead Room" last year and found that a passable short - but this one didn't work for me.

John Martin (Wilf Scolding) is on trial for the murder of village girl Ann (Jessica Temple) with whom he's being spending his time, at the expense of his reputation. Up before Judge Jeffreys (Elliot Levey) and already fearing the outcome, his case take a turn for the bizarre when the Prosecutor (Peter Capaldi) professes that the victim has been seen, since the murder.

What can I say, the performances were fine and the setting was OK. But I don't feel like the story was scary, funny or clever enough to warrant its telling. I assumed the meta element of having Simon Williams telling the story contemporarily was going to pay back into it somehow, but it didn't..

Nothing technically wrong, just a little underwhelming.

I don't often post my views on IMDB because I know how difficult it is to make a halfway decent drama. This one is so strangely bad that I feel I have to flag it up. It's so dud that it has the feel of a student movie and apart from the performances of Peter Capaldi and Sara Crowe there's a distinctly amateurish air throughout (Simon Williams is good but wasted as the unnecessary modern commentator). Any courtroom drama should have plenty of coverage plus a few unique angles to give the editor (and the audience) a sporting chance of a stimulating ride. In this case there's far too much in close up - you could be watching Eastenders for goodness sake! The real curse is the script which has its own spoilers built-in, no surprises anywhere and, crucially for a ghost/horror story, none at the end. That such a remarkably bad production has Mark Gatiss's name on it is plain weird. There is so much brilliant drama on British TV (often written by Moffat & Gatiss) that this is definitely an oddball orphan. Over the years the BBC has made several half-hearted attempts at Christmas ghost stories. Even the better ones seem to lack conviction, 'going through the motions' almost. Come on BBC, it a great genre, give us a cracker for 2021!

Another installment of 'A Ghost Story for Christmas' and an ultra low budget, low production scale, low production values adaptation of a lesser short ghost story from M.R. James.

I think that the intention was to use a plainly small budget and minor production to tell a smaller story in an understated, reductive manner in an effort to create an effective drama from very short measures.

Regrettably I found this adaptation to be the least engaging of all the BBC's "direct" versions of M.R. Jame's tales, both from either the original 70's run and the intermittent 21st century series; discounting the ill judged 2010 version of 'Whistle and I'll come to you' as a far looser and unfettered effort; albeit one with redeeming features.

The scenes were not at all convincingly written or directed, with basic background as well as foreground inadequacies.

The antagonist was ably acted in most scenes but everyone else seemed to be under-directed or overacting or playing their part very broadly.

I found the ghostly elements to be weaker than I could sustain faith in....particularly the appearance of the phantom itself.

The best part in terms of my enjoyment was the one well crafted and well performed scene whereby the murderer and murdered first meet and strike up and 'relationship'. I liked that little set up.

I didn't like the framing/narration device of a modern perspective provided by a contemporary character. It seemed to me to be less believable than a failed effort at a period one would have been. Although it probably has the grain of a good idea behind it: something of a reflection of M.R. Jame's own way of telling his ghost stories in a contemporaneous manner at the time that he first told them to his select audiences, I couldn't ever get engaged with the idea here.

Overall personally I can commend the effort but not the product which simply left me bored and disbelieving for far too much of its run time.

In this instance, of such a under-nourishing story, casting a black actor in a key witness role made me think of how much more interesting a brief story would of been about his character in 1680's England rather than what was actually being offered and I actually preferred to mull this effect in my mind than be engaged by the creative vision offered here.

The morale of my tale is: if you are making a limited little story don't add something far more striking and distracting and interesting than your actual story as a minor cogg in the wheel of your narrative.

3 out of 10 from me

This production stays with the style of the story, and without that there would be no production. M.R. James is amazing, his ghost stories can scare me out of the house in the middle of the night, but they never do. That's what I like about them. When I've read (or listened) to one of his ghost stories, I'm never left wanting more from the story. Ive been entertained & then I'm respectfully left to myself and my own thoughts. This production does just that. I'm influenced by the fact that I've read the story several times. I wasn't left wondering or wanting at the end of the episode. The story line was understood. The humor in this production was equal to that of the story. It worked out right, that rarely happens in the story to screen conversion. I find that commendable. A ghost story for Christmas... is not meant to stick around, making you sick and hollow with fear.... it's something else, and it requires balance. This production kept that balance, not an easy thing to do these days.