|
|
Rating:  - Mystifying, Bewildering
Recently, my wife and I wanted to see a decent drama. (TV really has become the "wasteland" predicted in the 1950's; moreover, we didn't know that the 2005 version of Charles Dickens' "Bleak House" would be re-run on PBS within the next few weeks. We'd missed it last year.) So, we checked our old VHS collection and found we'd taped the 13-part series, "To Serve Them All My Days," from Masterpiece Theatre in the mid-1980's. Our copies even included insightful commentary from Alistair Cooke. Remember him?
At the end of "To Serve Them All My Days," Mr. Cooke said an upcoming program would be "The Good Soldier, " a 1981, BBC production. We didn't remember this one and thought it might be worth viewing, if it was anywhere near the quality of, "To Serve Them All My Days." Stars of "The Good Soldier" were said to include Jeremy Brett, of Sherlock Holmes fame, and Elizabeth Garvie, who played Elizabeth Bennett in a quite entertaining version of "Pride and Prejudice," in 1979. Robin Ellis whom we also liked in "Poldark" would play John Dowell, the vacuous American husband and narrator of "The Good Soldier."
I searched the Amazon.com listings to see if "The Good Soldier" might be available on DVD. Amazingly, it was due to come out the following week. The reason I go into all this is to say we had every reason to believe that this production would be a good one, coming as it did from what we regard as the "golden age" of Masterpiece Theatre. What we got instead was disappointing.
In all honesty, we did find most of the acting, scenery, costumes, and other production features of "The Good Soldier" to be fine. It was the story that let us down--if there really is a story. From what we can tell, the saga takes place in the 9-year period before World War I, 1904-1913. It's possible, the author, Ford Madox Ford (who had changed his last name from the very German, Hueffer) wanted to return to a more pleasant era when he finished this piece in 1915. This was shortly after World War I broke out. If the author also wanted to show how decadent and purposeless things were at that time he may have succeeded there, too.
As I was saying, the story takes place about 100 years ago and centers on two middle-aged couples. One is English (Edward and Leonora Ashburnham); the other, American (John and Florence Dowell). They meet at a German spa and get along so well they keep meeting there over nine ensuing summers. On the surface, they seem well-behaved, well-dressed, and friendly. But beneath the calm and elegant facade, Edward is a latter-day Casanova whom women find irresistible. He seduces one woman after another right under his wife's nose, finally to include Florence, the wife of his friend John Dowell. (Florence has been faking a heart condition in order to reduce John to the role of solicitous keeper). But when she sees Edward alone with his teenage niece, Nancy, Florence gets jealous and kills herself. When Edward can't have Nancy, he also kills himself. Nancy, who came from a broken home and was raised by nuns, then goes insane. Despite all this, John Dowell ends up with Nancy and becomes her keeper just as he'd been for Florence.
Some of the dialogue seems tongue-in-cheek, if not downright campy. One example is where Leonora accuses Florence of being a whore. Florence objects, but Leonora dead-pans, "All whores say that." (Ironic since Leonora is supposed to be a devout Irish Catholic and sensitive about her faith and heritage. Also, she's quite privileged and refined. What would she know about whores?) Similarly, John Dowell seems to be especially gullible and naive all the way through the story, even as he narrates. In fact, he starts his narration with the quote, "This is the saddest story I've ever heard." John also says shortly after his wife's suicide, "Now I can marry Nancy." Maybe it's supposed to be funny? Maybe not? We're told in the analysis that the author wanted John to be "an unreliable narrator." Oh well, at least we're spared the Louis Carroll line: "And the momrads outgrabe."
Ford Madox Ford is described as a "modernist writer," which may mean that he's the literary equivalent of Picasso or Salvador Dali. If this be true, we won't look for any more works by Mr. Ford. His personal life was a mess and he was sued for child support by his estranged wife. He served 8 days in prison as a result. Perhaps his writing was a release for him where he could devise characters and stories that were even more messed up than his own life. And in this, readers can feel relieved that they may not have it so bad after all. I call this the "Tennessee Williams effect" for the American writer whose sordid tales did much the same thing. Sure it's a stretch, but there can be some kind of social value from this, can't there? I didn't waste $18.69, did I?
In summing up, none of the characters in "The Good Soldier" is particularly worthy of our concern and the plot is virtually nonexistent. People end up cheating on each other and committing suicide or losing their minds. Was Mr. Ford trying to say that it was better to have a world war than to die from boredom, or what? His characterization of Americans is also unnerving. Are they supposed to be superficial or naive, when compared to their British counterparts? Or are the British just supposed to be cynical, sarcastic, treacherous, and mixed up? (The Nazis tried to persuade us of these British traits in their propaganda during World War II. Germans, on the other hand, were supposed to be much more forthright, industrious, and trustworthy--like Americans.)
As to how often flashbacks are used, at the beginning, middle, and end, apparently, this was supposed to be an impressionistic device that readers would find unusual and profound. To my wife and I it just added to the mishmash and confusion. If you're going to tell a story, go ahead and tell it. If you're not going to tell a story and instead just mill around with useless characters who don't know what they want and end up wanting to kill themselves, keep the whole thing to yourself and don't bother anyone else.
If you enjoy psycho-dramas with plenty of betrayal, seduction, and doubletalk, e. g., "Dangerous Liaisons," starring Glenn Close and John Malkovich, "The Good Soldier" may be for you. But if you prefer to see stories that convey a positive message, have good guys and bad guys, failure or success, you should pass on "The Good Soldier." Get, instead, "To Serve Them All My Days," or the 2005 version of "Bleak House," with Gillian Anderson. "Bleak House" may be the best thing from Masterpiece Theatre in the past 20 years.
Rating:  - Faithful to the Spirit of Ford's Novel
Of course, much is lost in the translation of "The Good Soldier" from page to screen, chiefly the narrative and temporal complexities of the novel. However, the television adapatation is successful in its use of time shifts, and, like Ford's work, the film is impressionistic, often showing us a scene twice to give the viewer two different impressions.
However, we lose Dowell's process of writing itself and his relation with the reader. In the film, Dowell is mainly absent from the last third of the story because it is told from Leonora's perspective, whereas in the novel Dowell's voice is dominant throughout, even when he is recounting what has only been told him.
Of course, any book - especially a modernist novel - loses a good deal of its complexity in the transition to film, and "The Good Soldier" is on the whole a successful adaptation of the novel, much better than the adpatations of other modernist novels I've seen, like "Ulysses" and "Mrs. Dalloway." The film was shot on location in Nauheim and elsewhere in Germany, which shows the care this production takes with Ford's work.
The four principals are all excellent in their roles, particularly Jeremy Brett and Susan Fleetwood as the Ashburnhams. The score was excellent as well. The production also keeps Dowell's voiceovers to a minimum, which may be something of a loss but it is welcome in a televison adpatation, which thankfully shows us a great deal of the action instead of telling.
Overall, then, I found this adaptation of "The Good Soldier" to be one of the more successful installments of "Masterpiece Theater" and probably one of the best film made from a modernist novel that I have seen. While we lose the complexities of Dowell's narration and his potential unreliabilty, the film utilizes the time-shifts and impressionistic technique of Ford's novel, and there are subtle hints that Dowell may know more than he lets on. Thus, the film's success stems from its faithfulness to the aesthetic spirit of Ford's novel.
Caveat: The film will make little sense at first to those who have not read the novel, which is required reading for anyone who wants to understand the nuances of the story.
Rating:  - A brilliant adaption of Ford Maddox Ford's best novel
This production of "The Good Soldier" shows what television can do to translate a terrific novel to the screen. The story is about two couples, one American and one British, and is narrated by the American husband. As the story develops, he realizes that most of what he has believed about his relationship with his wife and with his British friends is based upon lies. For this reason, several crucial scenes are shown twice -- the first time they appear innocent or inexplicable; the second time, when the narrator has learned of the events leading up to the scenes, they take on a very different appearance. The uncertainty of the truth of what you are seeing is indicated in an opening montage of various scenes from the entire story, which (if you haven't read the novel) will seem very confusing at first. By the end of story, you can see why the narrator begins by describing this as the saddest story he knows. I saw the production decades ago on PBS, and then for many years had a recorded VHS tape (now gone). It's great to have this on DVD. It would be nice to know if there are any special features, but even there aren't, it's still great.
By the way, it's true that John Ratzenberger (Cliffie on Cheers) does a great job as a seductive love interest for one of the women. Hard to believe if you watched Cheers, but Ratzenberger has a wider range as an actor than you would think.
|
|