Classic Literature TV Adaptations: Heaven or Hell?

As a lover of most classical literature stories I think that TV adaptations, if constructed well, can enhance the beauty of a story. Two excellent adaptations for me are the BBC's Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle; and the BBC's North and South with Richard Armitage and Daniella Denby-Ashe. I'd read P&P long before the adaptation, and it served to rekindle my love of the story. I watched the adaptation of N&S recently and because I loved it so much, I'm currently reading, and enjoying, the book. Nine times out of 10, the book will be better, but adaptations can help bring the book to new audiences.

What do you think? Are classical costume dramas your idea of heaven, or should they be banished to Room 101?

I can't say I've enjoyed many of the classical adaptations made in America, though I have enjoyed some which the BBC has put out. The same goes for mysteries by my favorite authors. An exception might be the A&E channel. I really enjoyed their take on the Rex Stout mysteries recently.

For the most part though, I would rather read the books for the classics. There are so many little precious bits which have to be cut to fit into a TV schedule, and I tend to treasure those bits as much as the bigger story, if not more.

They're highly variable as far as I'm concerned. The BBC does have a long history of decent costume dramas, and actors who are used to being in that sort of role.

I have to admit that I'm as much of a fan of watching as reading when it comes to historical drama. The reading part doesn't grab me as strongly as the costumes and the flowing of events. For reading, I'm a 21st century fast-flowing-plot fan.

Hurray for the BBC - :)

Absolutely! Three cheers for the BBC!!

Cranford was another delight.

They're a bit dated but I thoroughly enjoy the made for tv versions of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1968) & Dracula (1973) starring Jack Palance in the leading roles, both produced by Dan Curtis of Dark Shadows fame. Curtis also directed the version of Dracula and Richard Matheson wrote the screenplay which is probably why I find it actually scary.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062908/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070003/

There is also a made for tv version of The Picture of Dorian Gray (1973) produced by Curtis and starring Shane Briant who did work for Hammer Films.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070533/

Last but not least, Curtis did it again with The Turn of the Screw (1974).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072328/

I am such a classic horror geek.

I agree with Will, it depends on what it is for me. I also love that version of P&P, love Jeeves and Wooster, which is a loopy version of a costume drama, I suppose. But it makes me laugh hysterically. Some of them get boring though. I remember my mom watching Upstairs, Downstairs, and thinking it was the most boring show ever.

I know what you mean, Mrs Lee. Sometimes the detail can be lost in an adaptation, but for the most part, I'm with Will in liking the drive of the plot and the visual spectacle. (Most true for me where Dickens is concerned. I love the plots, but find the books verbose.)

Cranford was a lovely series, katylit. I'm fond of Lark Rise to Candleford as well.

cmbohn, totally agree that Jeeves and Wooster was a wonderful series. Fry and Laurie were perfect in the roles and I can't read the books without imagining them speaking the lines. I'm not sure whether this is a blessing or a curse, though! : )

I've not seen any of those horror versions, OldSarge, but will give them a go now you've mentioned them. I'm looking forward to the new film adaptation of Dorian Gray as it looks fantastic.

The Sci-Fi Channel adaptation of Dune was quite good - it did look cheap at times (except for the sandworms, which were excellent), but it was quite faithful to the source material.

I read North and South first, but imagined Richard Armitage and Daniela Denby-Ashe as John and Margaret! Now I am watching the series, and although I disagree with the violent interpretation of John's character in the first episode, I can't wait for the romance in the fourth.

And the A+E adaptations of the Nero Wolfe books introduced me to the characters - I never would have heard of them otherwise!

What I notice in myself is that some books I'm perfectly happy to see interpreted by a film or TV director and others I feel protective and possessive about. All Jane Austen's novels have been "done" so many times (with the possible exception of Northanger Abbey for some odd reason), some good, some not so, some excellent. I find myself watching one and thinking, 'Hmm, that's a particularly good Miss Bates' for example. (Yes, I'm watching the BBC 'Emma' currently being broadcast in the UK!)

But some books I can't bear to see interpreted. This is a bit off-the-wall but I so love K M Peyton's books, especially the Pennington trilogy Pennington's Seventeenth Summer, The Beethoven Medal and Pennington's Heir, and if they were ever adapted - fat chance - I'd hide from them.

I saw all Peter Jacksons Lord of the Rings films because we took the kids, and in my opinion every single character was wrong. Oh well. But - big but - the design was fabulous, from the landscape to the decorative detail on a sword hilt or chair back, and I could never have imagined all of that. That was truly enriching.

So much depends. The most recent British BBC adaptation of Mansfield Park that starred Billie Piper was a complete and utter abomination. Just AWFUL! Wrong historically, wrong in terms of characterization, just badly done all the way 'round!

*sputters with indignation on Jane Austen's behalf*

Of course, there were those who don't think there has ever been a decent adaptation done of Mansfield Park, simply because its a difficult and perhaps not an entirely successful work.

That said, there was a positively wonderful adaptation of Edith Wharton's The Buccanneers that worked *very* well. Wharton had left the novel unfinished but among her papers, had notes of how she thought the book might finished.

How much does the producer respect the historical accuracy of the period as opposed to how much does the producer (or whomever else is paying the bills) feel that the literary classic needs to be "updated for modern sensibilities"?

Mel Gibson in Hamlet was the one Shakespeare play even the kids loved.

#10 - Hi there! *waves*

#12 & 13 - I also loved the Kenneth Branagh version, though it wasn't historically accurate and added some silly cameos, but then I think Hamlet comes away shiny in anything, even in a Thursday Next novel.

#7 - You might try to rewatch them. I recently rented the series from Netflix and loved them.
Rach - I also loved Wooster and Jeeves.

Another fabulous BBC series starred Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes. The way he could twitch those thin lips was brilliant.

I didn't care for the adaptation of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It seemed to be rather forced and awkward.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy adaptation was surprisingly bad. We rented the DVD and my son, who loves the books, was so disappointed he walked out on it early on.

I'm told it preceded the excellent Neil Gaiman book, rather than adapted it, but the BBC Neverwhere series, in contrast, was terrific.

Neverwhere, i read an essay by Gaiman somewhere where he kept making suggestions to the director, and eventually the director got so exasperated by all the ides he couldn't put in to the tv series that the director told gaiman to go write the book, so he did.