IMDb RATING
6.8/10
1.6K
YOUR RATING
An elderly man pieces together his childhood memories after finding his diary from 1900, which he wrote when he was 13 years old.An elderly man pieces together his childhood memories after finding his diary from 1900, which he wrote when he was 13 years old.An elderly man pieces together his childhood memories after finding his diary from 1900, which he wrote when he was 13 years old.
- Nominated for 1 BAFTA Award
- 2 wins & 2 nominations total
Tony Pankhurst
- Station Porter
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
6.81.5K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Featured reviews
Superfluous
One can understand the BBC's desire to remake "Cider with Rosie" and "Lady Chatterley's Lover", and perhaps even "An Inspector Calls", although the last has at least two fine filmed versions, but their decision to remake "The Go-Between" was a misguided one.
Jospeh Losey's 1971 version is one of those rare occasions in which everything seemed to be right - a top notch cast, beautiful cinematography, a terrific Michel Legrand score and a superb Harold Pinter screenplay. L. P. Hartley himself was moved to tears after seeing the film. So then why remake it? How could it possibly fare in comparison?
This television version does not even begin to compete with its predecessor. Adrian Hodge shows little faith in his audience forgoing any subtlety in his dialogue and general characterisation. The cast are a pale and uncharismatic bunch.
Seek out Hartley's novel and Losey's film - they are masterpieces. Skip this one.
Jospeh Losey's 1971 version is one of those rare occasions in which everything seemed to be right - a top notch cast, beautiful cinematography, a terrific Michel Legrand score and a superb Harold Pinter screenplay. L. P. Hartley himself was moved to tears after seeing the film. So then why remake it? How could it possibly fare in comparison?
This television version does not even begin to compete with its predecessor. Adrian Hodge shows little faith in his audience forgoing any subtlety in his dialogue and general characterisation. The cast are a pale and uncharismatic bunch.
Seek out Hartley's novel and Losey's film - they are masterpieces. Skip this one.
A birder's comment
A wonderful well cast and moving theme. Leo (Jack Hollington) held centre stage with almost cameo performances from Jim Broadbent and Vanessa Redgrave. Set in 1900, just one minor error on the soundtrack - a Collared Dove cooing in the background on a quiet summer's day - this species of dove didn't arrive in the UK from the Middle East via Europe until the 1960s!
Disappointing
This was a major disappointment compared to the novel and original film. Like most modern period dramas, it is style over substance, with stunning photography masking a misguided script and some unconvincing acting.
The earlier 1971 movie was a flawless adaptation, with Harold Pinter's script tending to say less with more, upping the tension with the slow, languid pace reflecting the heat of the summer and limited, meaningful dialog. Here, unnecessary lines are inserted as will, many not even in the novel, such as Leo's embarrassment about his old and ragged summer clothes after Marian accuses him of lying – this is just a cheap way of garnering sympathy for the boy, and not reflective of the times it was set. Such things would have been left unsaid. It is the same through the program; everything needs to be spelt out, rather than leaving it to the actors to subtly convey.
There are poor minor plot additions such as Ted seeming defensive about being poor – certainly not true to the book, and a far cry from Alan Bates and his worldly self confidence. Here he attempts to be brooding and moody, as oppose to charismatic and cheery but with a fiery temper, and it makes him far less likable and far less obvious why Marian would risk everything for him. Mariam herself is only passably acted, with Julie Christie an impossible act to follow. Marian's father being away is another pointless adjustment, and the production misses his steady, world weary presence, especially in the smoking room scene that was so integral to the first film. Trimmingham also loses some of his aristocratic dignity and military bearing, and the writer inexplicably takes away his fantastic line that gives him such honour and pathos: "Nothing is ever a ladies fault, Leo".
Leo himself puts in a fairly lifeless, strangely camp performance, with a certain charm combined with adolescent awkwardness which is very different from the more honest, believable performance in the film. Less attention paid to the central theme of oppressive heat, the film seems to move much quicker and out of sequence. It's also more outwardly emotional, compared to the stoicism of the film and novel, where passions are repressed and below the surface. The vital moments here are filled with shrieks and histrionics. The final meeting is too warm and pleasant – it should have that edge of regret, memory, pain and nostalgia mixed together, the dialog has been watered down, the hint of bitterness discarded.
Unfortunately it suffers greatly by comparison, because taken by itself it is a very solid, beautifully shot production. The filming is breathtaking, with so many lovely touches including the reflection in the water scene and that wonderful final shot of older Leo against the hall and endless lawn. For people who haven't seen the original or read the book this may seem a far better film that the one I have described.
The earlier 1971 movie was a flawless adaptation, with Harold Pinter's script tending to say less with more, upping the tension with the slow, languid pace reflecting the heat of the summer and limited, meaningful dialog. Here, unnecessary lines are inserted as will, many not even in the novel, such as Leo's embarrassment about his old and ragged summer clothes after Marian accuses him of lying – this is just a cheap way of garnering sympathy for the boy, and not reflective of the times it was set. Such things would have been left unsaid. It is the same through the program; everything needs to be spelt out, rather than leaving it to the actors to subtly convey.
There are poor minor plot additions such as Ted seeming defensive about being poor – certainly not true to the book, and a far cry from Alan Bates and his worldly self confidence. Here he attempts to be brooding and moody, as oppose to charismatic and cheery but with a fiery temper, and it makes him far less likable and far less obvious why Marian would risk everything for him. Mariam herself is only passably acted, with Julie Christie an impossible act to follow. Marian's father being away is another pointless adjustment, and the production misses his steady, world weary presence, especially in the smoking room scene that was so integral to the first film. Trimmingham also loses some of his aristocratic dignity and military bearing, and the writer inexplicably takes away his fantastic line that gives him such honour and pathos: "Nothing is ever a ladies fault, Leo".
Leo himself puts in a fairly lifeless, strangely camp performance, with a certain charm combined with adolescent awkwardness which is very different from the more honest, believable performance in the film. Less attention paid to the central theme of oppressive heat, the film seems to move much quicker and out of sequence. It's also more outwardly emotional, compared to the stoicism of the film and novel, where passions are repressed and below the surface. The vital moments here are filled with shrieks and histrionics. The final meeting is too warm and pleasant – it should have that edge of regret, memory, pain and nostalgia mixed together, the dialog has been watered down, the hint of bitterness discarded.
Unfortunately it suffers greatly by comparison, because taken by itself it is a very solid, beautifully shot production. The filming is breathtaking, with so many lovely touches including the reflection in the water scene and that wonderful final shot of older Leo against the hall and endless lawn. For people who haven't seen the original or read the book this may seem a far better film that the one I have described.
A good try!
I have rated this film as 8 out of ten because if you ignore the original version it is an excellent production with some good performances but for me nothing can match the original 1971 version which I would give 10 out of 10.
It was an almost impossible task to attempt to improve on the original and if you can't do that, why bother? Unfortunately the new film blatantly tries to copy the 1971 version in several places and inexplicably omits key lines and characters that were in the L.P. Hartley novel.
And why was the new film not filmed in Norfolk? Berkshire is an unconvincing substitute. Railway buffs will also have noticed that the station shown was obviously southern, probably the Bluebell Railway, not at all like a Norfolk station.
It was an almost impossible task to attempt to improve on the original and if you can't do that, why bother? Unfortunately the new film blatantly tries to copy the 1971 version in several places and inexplicably omits key lines and characters that were in the L.P. Hartley novel.
And why was the new film not filmed in Norfolk? Berkshire is an unconvincing substitute. Railway buffs will also have noticed that the station shown was obviously southern, probably the Bluebell Railway, not at all like a Norfolk station.
Edwardian love triangle
'The past is a foreign country: They do things differently there.'
What a great opening line and it belongs to the novel which this is adapted from. It got me immediately hooked.
What also helped was an astonishing performance from actor Jack Hollington who played Leo.
The film starts with Leo as an old man (Jim Broadbent) going back to revisit the summer of 1900 which had a profound effect on his life.
As a 12 year old boy he went to stay with a well to do school friend Marcus and his family, it becomes apparent that Leo is from a more modest background and has to adjust to a society of privilege and wealth.
Leo is struck by the beautiful Marian who is due to be engaged to Viscount Trimingham (Stephen Campbell Moore) and therefore set herself up for life. However he has been disfigured in the Boer War and Marian has been having a passionate affair with tenant farmer Ted Burgess (Ben Batt smoldering like a younger Rufus Sewell for all his worth.)
Leo is used by Marian and Ted as a go-between carrying secret messages between the two, yet he also used to convey messages between Trimingham and Marian.
Leo realises even at his tender age that the affair between lowly Ted and Marian is doomed and also he has been used by Marian. Her kind acts to get new clothes for him had ulterior motives.
It was a fast moving adaptation, very much cut down from all the flab. It kept the class divisions subdued, even Trimingham a war veteran aims to have cordial relations with his tenants in the estate but definitely wants to win the cricket match against his farmers.
Lesley Manville gives an icy performance as Mrs Maudsley, Marion's mother who suspects what she has been up to but hell bent on her marrying Trimingham. Even Trimingham suspects she is not entirely his hence why he would like Ted to join the army.
I have not seen the 1971 film version but I guess seeing Julie Christie and Alan Bates together again would probably had taken my mind back to their earlier pairing in Far from the Madding Crowd which kind of has a few superficial similar plot elements.
There is a coda at the end as the older Leo encounters the older Marion (Vanessa Redgrave) which rounds off the story. Leo however is still haunted by the past.
What a great opening line and it belongs to the novel which this is adapted from. It got me immediately hooked.
What also helped was an astonishing performance from actor Jack Hollington who played Leo.
The film starts with Leo as an old man (Jim Broadbent) going back to revisit the summer of 1900 which had a profound effect on his life.
As a 12 year old boy he went to stay with a well to do school friend Marcus and his family, it becomes apparent that Leo is from a more modest background and has to adjust to a society of privilege and wealth.
Leo is struck by the beautiful Marian who is due to be engaged to Viscount Trimingham (Stephen Campbell Moore) and therefore set herself up for life. However he has been disfigured in the Boer War and Marian has been having a passionate affair with tenant farmer Ted Burgess (Ben Batt smoldering like a younger Rufus Sewell for all his worth.)
Leo is used by Marian and Ted as a go-between carrying secret messages between the two, yet he also used to convey messages between Trimingham and Marian.
Leo realises even at his tender age that the affair between lowly Ted and Marian is doomed and also he has been used by Marian. Her kind acts to get new clothes for him had ulterior motives.
It was a fast moving adaptation, very much cut down from all the flab. It kept the class divisions subdued, even Trimingham a war veteran aims to have cordial relations with his tenants in the estate but definitely wants to win the cricket match against his farmers.
Lesley Manville gives an icy performance as Mrs Maudsley, Marion's mother who suspects what she has been up to but hell bent on her marrying Trimingham. Even Trimingham suspects she is not entirely his hence why he would like Ted to join the army.
I have not seen the 1971 film version but I guess seeing Julie Christie and Alan Bates together again would probably had taken my mind back to their earlier pairing in Far from the Madding Crowd which kind of has a few superficial similar plot elements.
There is a coda at the end as the older Leo encounters the older Marion (Vanessa Redgrave) which rounds off the story. Leo however is still haunted by the past.
Did you know
- TriviaJim Broadbent also appeared in the original The Go-Between (1971), his first film role (though an uncredited role).
- ConnectionsFeatured in BAFTA Televsion Awards 2016 (2016)
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content

