Bleak House

I recently have been on a major Dickens dvd binge, watching several of the early 80's BBC TV versions of "Oliver Twist", "The Pickwick Papers", and "Dombey & Son". About a year previously, I watched "Hard Times" and "Nicholas Nickleby". I was unfamiliar with all but "Twist" and "Pickwick", though I've never read any of the original novels upon which all the aforementioned titles are based. I've seen other TV and movie versions of several famous Dickens titles over the years, some from BBC, some from various studios. The current binge, though, has been as an antidote to pathetic regular TV and lack of worthwhile theatrical releases. I've been craving compelling plots, historical escapism, and fascinating characters. Knowing Dickens filled these requirements, I indulged myself. Bleak House was my latest excursion into a story I knew nothing about. Having just recently finished the excellent BBC TV movie version of Dombey & Son(again, about which I knew nothing), I was looking immensely forward to House. The first drawback that almost killed it for me were the several impossible-to-understand accents, a common factor in all these adaptations, a major hindrance to their enjoyment. It seemed the worst in Bleak House. Fortunately, most of the main, important characters were usually easy enough to understand. One good thing is that, as in many of these British literary films, one or more major characters are generally silent, saying very little. Mostly reaction shots and quiet, sparse dialog. My next major complaint, as has been mentioned by others, were the dismally dim and grungy settings. Despite historical accuracy and Dickens' original descriptions, visually these were extremely tedious and depressing to watch. They may work wonderfully on the printed page but are excruciating downers to sit through. In fact, there's virtually no color in the entire production. Sometimes I wonder if the endless human, animal, and carriage movement and congestion in the streets of London were as constant and chaotic as these films often depict, but especially so in House. My point being, aside from the grime and filth, such crowded, drab street commotion was just exhausting to watch. Episode 4 was the absolute worst for me. Incoherent accents, dark settings, and a complete standstill of plot, along with long, static, extremely talky scenes. Almost gave up on the series but forced myself to stick with it. I won't rehash the storyline but it IS convoluted and confusing. Sound quality is wildly uneven, too. One minute I had the volume up as high as it goes, the next minute, a character or music was so loud as to blast one's eardrums, necessitating an immediate turn-down, only to repeat the process almost continuously. Acting overall pretty good. I think Mr. Elliott takes the honors. I identified with him the most. The actor playing the man-child Skimpole very good, also. As much as I've always liked Diana Rigg, she didn't do much for me in this, spending most of her limited screen time staring at characters as they talk at her for what seems like forever--her face, emblematic of her regal detachment, completely immobile for lengthy periods of time, just staring. Not the most interesting use of a visual medium. A couple of lesser characters, maids, I think, were facially indistinguishable from each other, adding to confusion. The drama has its moments but they're sporadic. Convoluted plot, horrendously dark, grungy settings, and incomprehensible and/or irritating accents make Bleak House a long, tough slog. And yet the greatness of Dickens still comes through. On film, though, House is too labyrinthine and plodding, with largely unlikeable or uninteresting characters, and depressingly dim scenes that didn't translate well visually. Most surprising of all, for those who stick with it, is the very satisfying and moving conclusion(to me). Bleak House is a mixed bag in terms of this particular BBC version but is very bleak indeed to watch. Best advice is to skip, as it's not really worth the investment of time, even for a Dickens fanatic like me!

There will always be inevitable comparisons to which adaptation of Bleak House people prefer, this or 2005. From a personal point of view, there is no real preference as both adaptations are outstanding in their own way. And not just as adaptations, but also on their own as well, which is every bit as important. The book is compelling, atmospheric and rich in characterisation. It is a mammoth book, and one of Dickens' least accessible(from first-time personal experience, the law stuff took its time to get completely). Both are well-made, tell the story extremely well indeed and brilliantly written and acted, the 2005 adaptation's characterisation is a little richer but this adaptation is a little more atmospheric.

Not everybody will find the 70s-80s Dickens serial adaptation their cup of tea. They may find them slow, long and with a lot of talk. That isn't the case with me. Of the ones seen, they respect their source material(even with omissions and changes here and there), are detailed, very evocative and Dickenesian and are well-made, written and acted. And that is the case with this Bleak House exactly. The costumes and sets look beautiful and very detailed, succeeding also in capturing the bleak nature of the book. They are also full of atmosphere and don't come across as too clean. The music is a pleasing mix of haunting overtones and delicate chamber-music-like, and fit with each scene excellently(if occasionally a little overdone in the final episode, some may prefer the more understated nature of the 2005 adaptation).

Bleak House(1985) scores very highly in the writing stakes too. Throughout the dialogue is intelligently adapted, there are scenes with a lot of talk but they weren't that tedious to me. The heartfelt tragedy, poignancy, sharp observations and nobility of Dickens' writing comes through loud and clear- some of Dickens' other books were also whimsical and had some nice comic scenes, The Old Curiosity Shop springs to mind- and the writing in the adaptation is distinctively Dickenesian in style. Bleak House(1985) is highly successful in how it tells this great story, characters are splendidly drawn and crucial scenes have their impact.

The adaptation is long, nearly seven hours, but there's a lot of characterisation and plotting going on so interest is always maintained. Things can unfold slowly, the first episode in particular, but that shouldn't be a turn-off. The book is also huge and has so much to tell, the long length was necessary and so was the pacing. Adaptation-wise, even with the omissions of a few minor characters, it is faithful in spirit to the book and to Dickens. The acting is very fine from all, three at least even are outstanding. Diana Rigg's Lady Dedlock is haunting and aristocratic as well as haughty and anguished. Denholm Elliot is a noble, gentle and moving Mr Jarndyce. And Peter Vaughan is splendidly sinister as Tulkinghorn. Coindentally, those characters were also performed the best in the 2005 adaptation as well.

Suzanne Burden plays Esther with backbone instead of being insipid or too meek, if not as warm as Anna Maxwell Martin. And Jonathan Moore is delightful as Guppy. All the characters are beautifully performed, much pleasure can be seen in those of the Smallweeds, Mrs Flite, Inspector Bucket, Sir Leicester Dedlock, Krook, Harold Skimpole and Jo too. All in all, a superb adaptation. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Watching this series reminded me of how strongly Dickens has influenced us. Bleak House doesn't have the fame of Great Expectations, Oliver Twist or David Copperfield, but some of the characters and scenes have entered our consciousness forever. Miss Flite and her birds, Mr. Chadband and his wearisome speechifying ("It is the ray of rays, the sun of suns... It is the light of Terewth."), Mr. Skimpole, who would be a fascist if ever he could work up the energy: they are some of our mental furniture. The camera-work is up to the challenge of bringing the verbose story to life, just see the scene of Tulkinghorn's murder with the Roman soldier painted on the ceiling pointing down at the proceedings.

The BBC assembles its casts carefully. Denholm Elliott as Jarndyce and Diana Rigg as Lady Dedlock are excellent, Peter Vaughan is a fine Tulkinghorn, Charlie Drake repulsive as Smallweed, and T. P. McKenna does Skimpole superbly. Suzanne Burden is appropriately self-effacing as Esther.

Atmospheric, evocative, any superlative you'd like to mention applies to this excellent adaptation.

The cinematography is such you can believe you're eavesdropping in on the London of the period, everything is perfect, with scenes often looking like paintings .

The acting is a true masterclass, this is far better than the later BBC adaptation, with performances more nuanced, and Diana Rigg and Denholm Elliott giving the definitive Lady Dedlock and John Jarndyce respectively.

Do seek this out on dvd if you've not seen it, you'll thank me for it.

"Bleak House" (1985) is a wonderful BBC adaptation of the novel by Charles Dickens. The movie was made for TV, so it does well on the small screen. It's long (8 episodes in 6 1/2 hours), but even that much screen time isn't enough for this novel, which is filled with plots and sub-plots, and many, many characters.

As would be expected from the BBC, the acting is outstanding, right down to the smallest cameo roles. Denholm Elliott is excellent as John Jahndyce, and Suzanne Burden is superb as Esther Summerson.

Even though Esther is the real protagonist of the novel, for me the most interesting character is Lady Honoria Dedlock. Lady Dedlock is played by Diana Rigg. Of course, Rigg was renowned for her beauty, but at age 47, I thought she was somewhat old for the part. (Lady Honoria was married to an older man, but she probably was 34 or 35 in the context of the novel.) Gillian Anderson, at age 35, played the role in the 2005 Bleak House. Anderson was impossibly beautiful and elegant as Lady Honoria. So, in my mind, that's what Lady Honoria looks like, and Riggs just can't reach that level. However, she's a fine actor, and does an excellent job.

All directors love to show us 19th Century urban England's mud, filth, smoke, and gloom. However, I've never seen these things portrayed so effectively as in this movie. You don't get the feel that you're watching a film set. You feel as if you're watching real life, which was certainly abysmal for the poor in that era. I never had the sense that the extras were waiting for their turn to play their part at just the right moment. Those scenes all looked organic and unrehearsed. (Of course, we know that the extras were, indeed, waiting for their turn. However, my point is that you don't feel this when you're watching the film.)

David Copperfield has a basically simple plot, and is readily adapted to the screen. Bleak House has an extraordinarily complex plot, and adapting it must be an extraordinarily difficult challenge. However, we have the good fortune to have two great versions to view. If I had to choose one over the other, I think I'd go with this 1985 version. The beauty is that you don't have to choose. See them both!