Forsyth Saga: Who is George?
Ed
hang around with Monty Darty. What's his relationship with the rest of
the Forsyths?
Tom Cervo
>hang around with Monty Darty. What's his relationship with the rest of
>the Forsyths?
A cousin by blood, and a dissenting Greek chorus in role. Try and figure out
what he does for a living some time.
Horace LaBadie
Ed <nob...@nospam.com> wrote:
George is a son of Roger, the fifth Forsyte, as Galsworthy calls him.
Therefore, cousin to Soames and Young Jolyon.
HWL
Horace LaBadie
tomc...@aol.com (Tom Cervo) wrote:
Roger reared his sons in the novel profession of collecting house
property -- "Nothing like it."
HWL
Ed
<hwlabadiejr-0AF8...@corp-radius.supernews.com>, Horace
LaBadie <hwlab...@nospamhighstream.net> wrote:
OK, I get the relationship, but have we seen much of Roger in the TV
series, I don't seem to remember him.
I really have to read the books but it sounds like the TV series is
portraying George as a Monty D'arte, but with money. Thoughts,
comments?
I find these later series a lot more interesting than the earlier ones.
Horace LaBadie
Ed <nob...@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article
> <hwlabadiejr-0AF8...@corp-radius.supernews.com>, Horace
> LaBadie <hwlab...@nospamhighstream.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <090220042249114569%nob...@nospam.com>,
> > Ed <nob...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > OK, I've clearly missed it, but who is George, the one who seems to
> > > hang around with Monty Darty. What's his relationship with the rest of
> > > the Forsyths?
> >
> > George is a son of Roger, the fifth Forsyte, as Galsworthy calls him.
> > Therefore, cousin to Soames and Young Jolyon.
>
>
> OK, I get the relationship, but have we seen much of Roger in the TV
> series, I don't seem to remember him.
He doesn't figure prominently in the novels, either.
> I really have to read the books but it sounds like the TV series is
> portraying George as a Monty D'arte, but with money. Thoughts,
> comments?
George has a secret life, but it doesn't come out until after his death,
when he leaves Soames a certain picture. Throughout the books, he
provides a succinct, slightly satirical, commentary on the main
characters. You might suspect that he is speaking for Galsworthy at
times. George is too much of a Forsyte to be compared to Monty.
> I find these later series a lot more interesting than the earlier ones.
The original adaptation was much more faithful to the novels and short
stories, both in incidents and tone. Irene, of course, was very
different, and written very differently.
HWL
Ed
<hwlabadiejr-06AB...@corp-radius.supernews.com>, Horace
LaBadie <hwlab...@nospamhighstream.net> wrote:
Sounds interesting, I definately will have to read the books. Thanks.
Horace LaBadie
Ed <nob...@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article
> <hwlabadiejr-06AB...@corp-radius.supernews.com>, Horace
> LaBadie <hwlab...@nospamhighstream.net> wrote:
SNIP
> > The original adaptation was much more faithful to the novels and short
> > stories, both in incidents and tone. Irene, of course, was very
> > different, and written very differently.
>
>
> Sounds interesting, I definately will have to read the books. Thanks.
You also might want to find the VHS or the DVD of the original BBC
series from 1967. It's available at Amazon. Eric Porter, Kenneth More,
Susan Hampshire, Nyree Dawn Porter. As far as I can see, the only
advantage that the new version has over the old is that it is in color.
HWL
Ed
<hwlabadiejr-D8B8...@corp-radius.supernews.com>, Horace
LaBadie <hwlab...@nospamhighstream.net> wrote:
> In article <110220042222022970%nob...@nospam.com>,
> Ed <nob...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <hwlabadiejr-06AB...@corp-radius.supernews.com>, Horace
> > LaBadie <hwlab...@nospamhighstream.net> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>
> > > The original adaptation was much more faithful to the novels and short
> > > stories, both in incidents and tone. Irene, of course, was very
> > > different, and written very differently.
> >
> >
> > Sounds interesting, I definately will have to read the books. Thanks.
>
> You also might want to find the VHS or the DVD of the original BBC
> series from 1967.
I see it's available from Netflix and I've added it to my queue.
Thanks for the info.
BudSwimmer18
>From: Ed nob...@nospam.com
>Date: 2/13/2004 7:44 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <130220040745161654%nob...@nospam.com>
I have the original B&W DVD & found it far superior to the remake. We just
finished reading "The Forsyte Saga at school and, even though its a
Victorian/Edwardiam soap opera, I enjoyed it. As to the remake, we all thought
it impossible for three men (Soames, Bosinney & Young Jolyson) to be
passionately in love with Gina McKee (Irenee) - one of the most boring
actresses I've ever seen. The original adaptation (as mentioned above) was
superb with the wonderful Nyree Dawn Porter as Irenee. As for the changes in
the present series: why?
Horace LaBadie
budswi...@aol.com (BudSwimmer18) wrote:
Why, indeed?
In an interview that aired at the time the remake was being broadcast
last year, one of the producers declaimed on the "necessity" to expand
upon Irene's characterization. She was not considered fully enough
developed for their tastes. That made me think that the producers had
not given much attention to Galsworthy's intentions for the character,
which he stated forthrightly. She was to remain enigmatic throughout the
saga, her thoughts never to be revealed. It was obvious that Irene was
an iconic character, a personification, almost allegorical, and her
appearance was esential to the character, Botticelli's Venus.
Galwsworthy's description of her was perfectly matched by Porter.
Couldn't they at least have put a blond wig on McKee?
And, for some reason, they decided to interpolate scenes that were not
in the books, as if everything had to be explicit.
The remake missed the satirical tone, too, which was the very essence of
the saga.
The desire to have a new vision of the work is understandable, but it
shouldn't be realized at the expense of the author's express purposes.
HWL
Tom Cervo
>shouldn't be realized at the expense of the author's express purposes.
>
You're hardly talking about Shakespeare here, and he gets re-visioned all the
time. The test is what you see on the screen. Porter's Irene may have been
ideal, but she was hardly human, and any good actor would rebel at portraying a
character which was nothing more than a collection of iconic snapshots rather
than a human being.
Horace LaBadie
tomc...@aol.com (Tom Cervo) wrote:
No, a good actor would care about doing a good job with the part. The
actors don't write the scripts, at least not actors of such modest
professional stature as McKee. McKee didn't choose herself to be Irene,
and then recruit the producers to make the series. The vision of the
producer is at fault.
As for it not being Shakespeare, there is a long modern tradition of
reproducing his works in all sorts of new ways, some of them quite
imaginative and artistically stimulating. Finding a new vision of the
work doesn't require throwing out its essential meaning, simply because
one thinks that the viewers won't get it, which appears to be the case
here. Irene is a very potent force in the novels, and Porter managed to
translate that to the screen, because the producers were faithful to the
character.
HWL
Tom Cervo
>actors don't write the scripts, at least not actors of such modest
>professional stature as McKee. McKee didn't choose herself to be Irene,
>and then recruit the producers to make the series. The vision of the
>producer is at fault.
You don't know much how about movies are made, do you?
There's a lot that goes on between the script and the screen, and a decent
director will let an actor go with something if it works. McKee seems to be
playing a real person as compared to Porter's wooden walkthrough. McKee's
stature was rather higher than Porter's before the series; afterwards time will
tell, but Porter disappeared from the screens after people got a look at Susan
Hampshire.
These serials were not very prestigeous in the UK, despite the Masterpiece
Theatre appellation they got in the US. A look at the tapes shows shoddy
production values andinept technical direction. The BBC started to put some
effort into them in the 80's.
Horace LaBadie
tomc...@aol.com (Tom Cervo) wrote:
> >No, a good actor would care about doing a good job with the part. The
> >actors don't write the scripts, at least not actors of such modest
> >professional stature as McKee. McKee didn't choose herself to be Irene,
> >and then recruit the producers to make the series. The vision of the
> >producer is at fault.
>
> You don't know much how about movies are made, do you?
Ad hominem attacks don;t answer the point.
> There's a lot that goes on between the script and the screen, and a decent
> director will let an actor go with something if it works. McKee seems to be
> playing a real person as compared to Porter's wooden walkthrough. McKee's
> stature was rather higher than Porter's before the series; afterwards time
> will
> tell, but Porter disappeared from the screens after people got a look at
> Susan
> Hampshire.
In television, the producers, not the director, have the final control
of the story.
According to the producers, Irene, like Soames, was set before McKee was
hired. We aren't discussing the relative acting talents of McKee and
Porter in any case, but the way that the characters were written, and
the fidelity of that writing to the original character created by
Galsworthy. If one intends to adapt Galsworthy, it seems only logical
that one pay attention to the objectives that Galsworthy set. The remake
seemed unaware of those objectives, or not to care. As a blank slate,
Irene took on the projected values of society, as represented by the
males around her. It also seems unaware of how Galsworthy accomplished
the humanization of Irene as she gained her liberation. She became a
fully rounded character after meeting Jolyon, who recognized that she
was first human, then an icon of beauty. The remake is really only
interested in the melodrama.
> These serials were not very prestigeous in the UK, despite the Masterpiece
> Theatre appellation they got in the US. A look at the tapes shows shoddy
> production values andinept technical direction. The BBC started to put some
> effort into them in the 80's.
Nobody ever claimed that they were perfect, but that statement about
production values is inaccurate. Both "The Forsyte Saga" and "The First
Churchills" were praised for their superior production values (relative
the US dramas). "I, Claudius" was another from the 1970s that was highly
praised for production values.
HWL
Tom Cervo
>production values is inaccurate. Both "The Forsyte Saga" and "The First
>Churchills" were praised for their superior production values (relative
>the US dramas). "I, Claudius" was another from the 1970s that was highly
>praised for production values.
But compared to something like "Bleak House" they look like kinoscopes.