TK401

Shaw does Chekhov and he gets away with it - and so does the BBC, committed, in the seventies and eighties, to bring classic plays mostly as they were written (including the complete Shakespeare). Some people don't seem to like this letting-the-play-be-the-play, but I like it very much. This is television for an audience that wants to watch a play, an audience that wants to hear words and speeches and the glory of the English language, an audience that wants to see actors at their best (Gielgud, Massey, Down are good, but I would single out Barbara Murray). If that is what you expect, then this one will be a pleasure -- as it was for me.

Another hidden gem from the BBC-seventies, a decade in which a lot of classic (or just old) plays were registered on videotape with the text and the actors in the forefront and not some "vision" of a director.

In this one, again, the text of Shaw's play is brought as it is, no less -- and no more, despite what another reviewer says. I love how the camera just registers the play without drawing attention to itself. Same for art direction etc. This is about the text and about the actors, and Coral Browne is outstanding -- is she the best actress I have ever seen? Perhaps she is. The camera stays on her face, close-up, for minutes at a time, and she really draws you in, she's so real, it's remarkable, superior to anything the best Hollywood-actresses ever did (or were given the opportunity to do). Penelope Wilton is completely suited to play the part she plays here. The men, like in many plays of Shaw, or of secondary importance. The ending will probably disappoint many viewers, but for those who understand this play it will be most satisfying.

So the production values aren't great, but that wouldn't have been a problem if the screenplay had been any good.

I've read the novel (by Henri Conscience) on which this move was based, and in this case, again, the old cliché is true: the novel was better.

The screenwriter (by Hugo Claus, a prolific novelist, poet, and playwright) seems to make all the wrong choices. Imho this screenplay was one of the worst effort of the much-lauded author.

One of the main conflicts in the novel is the contrast between Jan Breydel, a violent butcher in every way, and Pieter Deconinck, a thoughtful strategist. Oddly enough, the screenplay makes almost nothing of this.

Central in the novel, is a love story (Machteld and Adolf). Granted, in the novel (published in 1834) it's a courtly and sentimental affair, but Claus the screenwriter chooses to leave it out.

So it you would condense the big novel this film was based on, you would probably concentrate on these two relatoinships. But Claus chooses to be an "artist", and the result is almost a confusing non-story. No contemporary Fleming would know what this is all about, and so he wouldn't care -- nor would anyone else care.

This is a shame, because the historic facts make a great story, and the novel has a great story, about the mightiest European state (France) trying to subdue one of the wealthiest regions of the world (Flanders) -- all this in the early 14th century.

The movie ends with the "Battle of the Golden Spurs", which is still commemerated in Flanders on the 11th july. This movie does not do it proud.

I hope that one day a capable screenwriter and ditto director will make this into a great movie.