Screenwriter Sandy Welch’s version of Elizabeth Gaskell’s industrial novel has to be one of the best BBC classic adaptations. It’s a series which was an immediate hit on first screening - partly because of Richard Armitage’s brooding portrayal of Thornton, but also I think because of the story itself, since I remember a previous BBC adaptation in 1975 being very popular, though sadly I never had the opportunity to see it at the time. I’d love the chance to compare the 2004 mini-series with the earlier version, which starred Patrick Stewart and Rosalie Shanks.
The series has stunning cinematography by Peter Greenhalgh and set design by Simon Elliot, together with a haunting musical score by Martin Phipps. The director, Brian Percival, is also directing some episodes of the eagerly-awaited BBC costume series Downton Abbey. I’m going to discuss the whole plot in this review, so if you haven’t seen it I’d definitely advise doing so before you read on – and, if you are watching it for the first time, what a treat you have in store!
This four-part series could almost be called ‘Dark and Light’, because so many of the northern scenes are full of darkness and shadows, while the southern ones are bathed in light and colour. However, there is also a lot of cold white light in the northern scenes, with many scenes where either snow or fluff from the cotton mills whirls through the air. I have just reread the novel, which is one reason I’ve taken a long time to write this rather rambling review. The mini-series stays much closer to the book than with the BBC’s Cranford, but, in this film too, some of the most dramatic and passionate scenes are those which have been added, or drawn out from brief hints in the novel.
The opening scene sees heroine Margaret Hale (Daniela Denby-Ashe) sitting on a train – something which will also recur at the end of the series. Then the first episode traces why she is being uprooted from her home, Helstone, and taken by train to industrial Milton, in the north, based on Manchester. I think Denby-Ashe is very good as Margaret - she has a quality of holding everything in and not expressing very much emotion, but always with the knowledge that the hidden depths are there, which seems just right for the character. I like the scenes of Margaret in the countryside, including one where she lies down in the grass under a tree, showing how she feels herself in tune with the landscape around her. There are also London scenes near the start, as Margaret attends her cousin Edith’s wedding and inadvertently gives hope to stuffy suitor Henry Lennox (John Light) – whose proposal she turns down by telling him not to say any more, just as later she will try to silence the hero, John Thornton in his proposal scene.
Daniela Denby-Ashe as Margaret
In the opening scenes, Margaret has to stay strong – something she will have to do all the way through – as her father, Richard, the village parson, has a crisis of faith which leads to him leaving the Church of England. Tim Pigott-Smith is wonderfully tentative as Mr Hale, almost unrecognisable from his most famous performance in The Jewel in the Crown, while I also like Lesley Manville as his wife, the plaintive Maria, clinging to the memories of her socially grander younger days – something which is played up more in the novel. The other member of the household is Pauline Quirke as Maria’s fiercely devoted maid, Dixon.
When the Hales arrive in Milton, the visual contrast with the south is immediate, with all the dark and shadowy streets and the grey stone buildings. One important change from the novel is the first meeting between Margaret and John Thornton (Richard Armitage). In the book, there is nothing particularly dramatic about this meeting, but the class and north/south divide between them is immediately apparent, as he finds her haughty – because she is so reserved – while she is immediately aware of his trade background and describes him as “not quite a gentleman”. She also becomes uneasy about his attitude to his workers and the way he describes them as “hands”.
Richard Armitage as John Thornton
In the mini-series, these conflicting views are turned into vivid melodrama, with the first meeting coming as Margaret actually goes into the mill to make an inquiry – so she first sees Thornton at work, in his own realm. Here she is faced by the sight of him violently attacking a worker, whom he has caught smoking in the mill, creating a fire risk. When I first saw this scene, I reacted as Margaret does, with horror, and I remember finding it hard to warm to Thornton in the rest of the series, despite Richard Armitage’s sensitive portrayal of the character, because of the memory of that violence constantly hanging about him. I still feel uneasy about the scene, though I was interested to see that one of the comments at the imdb points out that this is probably the intended reaction – that in a way viewers undergo the same journey as Margaret, at first being put off Thornton but then gradually coming to forgive and understand him. He does later explain his anger, saying that the previous year he had seen many people die in a mill fire - a danger which was all too real.
William Houston as Boucher
I was quite surprised to realise that this whole episode of the smoking and fight isn’t in the novel, as, despite my unease about it, it is so powerful and does such a lot to establish characters. It gives Thornton’s character an undercurrent of violence which he must struggle to subdue, and shows Margaret’s determination to speak out for what she believes is right – something which is a key quality of the character in the novel. At first I thought the man he casts out in this scene was tragic waif John Boucher (William Houston), but I was wrong there, as Ailatan kindly pointed out in her comment – it is another character, Stevens. However, later in the film the struggling mill worker Boucher takes on the role of scapegoat and outcast – all through the mini-series, there are scenes of him wandering alone through the streets and later near the river, as he descends further into despair and towards his final tragic fate, when he drowns himself.
Richard Armitage and Sinead Cusack
After the initial glimpse of violence in Thornton’s character, this is tempered by hints of tenderness, through scenes of him and his mother. Sinead Cusack gives a powerful performance as Mrs Thornton and I liked all the scenes of mother and son, the way they leave a lot unsaid, but put across their concern for one another by their expression. When I read the book now I always see Cusack as the character in my mind’s eye - she just seems exactly right. I especially like the scene in episode three where Thornton returns after his failed proposal – there have been scenes of him wandering through the streets as Boucher does – and says “No one loves me – no one cares for me but you, mother”, a line taken word for word from the novel.
Anna Maxwell Martin as Bessy
Just as our perception of Thornton’s character changes, any view of Margaret as haughty and stand-offish is changed by the development of her friendship with dying mill girl Bessy Higgins and her father, fiery strike leader Nicholas. These characters are well played by Anna Maxwell Martin, who was so good as Esther in the BBC Bleak House, and Brendan Coyle, who stars as Robert Timmins in Lark Rise to Candleford. Bessy in the series is very different from the character in the book, who constantly talks about heaven and quotes from the book of Revelation, in a weird and unearthly way which reminds me at times of Jenny Wren in Dickens’s Our Mutual Friend. In the film, instead of being a pitiful creature who constantly talks about angels, she is a lively girl who could have been a real friend to Margaret – I think this is an example of the series losing a strongly Victorian element and tailoring the emotional content more to modern audiences.
Margaret stepping out to defend Thornton
Through Margaret’s friendship with the Higgins family, the series shows the cotton strike from both viewpoints, that of master and workers. As in the book, the bringing in of the Irish workers to break the strike is played down because we never actually see the plight of these incomers, who are left on the fringe of the narrative - but the anger and desperation of the half-starved mob we do see is powerfully created. One of the great scenes in both book and film comes when Margaret drives Thornton out to address the rioting workers, and then jumps into his arms to save him from a stone thrown by Boucher. This is the second time these three characters have been thrown together in a scene of violence.
This dramatic incident leads on to Thornton’s proposal to Margaret, which is reminiscent of Darcy’s first proposal in Pride and Prejudice - there are many similarities between the two novels – in the way that the two characters almost seem to be speaking different languages. It’s interesting to look at the deleted longer version of this scene, where Margaret says more about feeling that Thornton wants to buy her as his possession. I think the scene included in the final cut, where she suggests this more briefly, is more effective, a case of less being more. Richard Armitage is very good at playing a character tormented by unrequited love – something he kept up for two seasons of the BBC’s Robin Hood, a show I really want to write about some time – and this anguished conversation is probably his best scene in the whole mini-series. Something added to the novel’s account here is Thornton’s comments about the colour of fruit at the start and end of the scene. This seems to be inspired by all the mentions in the book of him taking fruit to Mrs Hale, and I think shows that he shares Margaret’s sensitivity to nature, despite his industrial surroundings.
Brendan Coyle as Nicholas Higgins
The portrayal of Thornton’s character deepens as his business falls apart in the aftermath of the strike, something which is rather rushed through in the novel, where Gaskell had to pack a lot into the later chapters because of serial publication. Here it is shown at a bit more length, bringing out his vulnerability (scenes like the one where he falls asleep with his head on the desk), and with his friendship with Nicholas mirroring Margaret’s. All through the series, scenes of conflict between him and the other masters, over measures such as bringing in a new invention to protect workers’ lungs, show he is closer to Margaret’s idealism than she realises.
While he is suffering torments in both his personal and professional life, Margaret is also going through her own troubles, with the deaths of her parents (this is a book where the deaths pile up fast) and the stolen visit by her brother, Frederick (Rupert Evans, who played Frank Churchill in Welch’s adaptation of Emma). The confrontation between Margaret, Frederick and Thornton at the station is another powerful set-piece.
The final scene
The couple’s final romantic meeting comes at a station again, as they are both travelling in trains in opposite directions - an incident which isn’t in the book but suggested by him visiting Helstone to see the place where she grew up and pick one of the flowers, something she also did on a visit there. I love this ending and the way it picks up on the opening scene with Margaret on the train, bringing everything full circle.
The four pictures featuring Richard Armitage I’ve used in this posting are all gratefully taken from the Richard Armitage Central Gallery.
Coming up next – Wives and Daughters!
Wonderful review, I think I might watch this one again. Though I have seen it so many times! I can point out that the man that Thornton gives a beating in the encounter with Margaret isn’t Boucher, but Stevens, a character we never see again.
I love many things about this mini series, the idea of the looks, so many times the characters are looking back to one another. The hand shake, the changing of opinion “I think at present I think better of you than you of me” Those flowers from the garden at Helstone.
I completely agree with on the similarities between N&S and P&P, with the addition of having a great deal of social issues of the Victorian period in N&S.
Another wonderful character is Mr Bell without him many things wouldn’t have been possible. His meddling ways are a treat to watch.
I’m sorry my comment got really long and rambling, but that’s becasue I really do love this adaptation.
Oops, I should have realised it couldn’t be Boucher in that fight scene, as this man is sacked then and there, and Boucher goes out on strike a bit later! Thanks, Ailatan, I will correct my review accordingly.
I do like Mr Bell too and really meant to mention Brian Protheroe’s performance, but my review got so long that I didn’t manage to get everything in! I don’t think your comment is long or rambling at all, and really appreciate you taking the time to comment, and being so encouraging. Glad to hear you love this adaptation too.
Commenting on my own blog… reading through my review today to make the correction Ailatan pointed out, it strikes me that, even though it is so long, I haven’t said enough about the key theme of the portrayal of the union – I don’t really want to rewrite the review now, as quite a few people have already read it as it is, so will instead add even more here!
Rereading the novel, it struck me that Gaskell is fairly even-handed in her portrayal of the union compared to, say, Dickens in ‘Hard Times’, where the union is seen bullying and isolating the martyr Stephen Blackpool.
She does show how the union members care for each other and pay strike pay, even though she also shows the hardship suffered by someone like Boucher – who is shown as the victim of both masters and unions. In the mini-series Nicholas is given time to talk about how the union is the only thing that gives the working man any power, but Margaret also puts the other side and argues the case of Boucher, the man forced to strike when he doesn’t want to.
I’m not clear in either book or mini-series whether Higgins is able to start up a union again when he goes to work for Thornton – I think probably not; the idea gets lost somewhere in the portrayal of the friendship between Higgins and Thornton, and social initiatives like the workplace kitchen.
Excellent review, thank you! Though one thing to add, Stevens does show up several more times. The second time you seen him, he is with Thornton at the gate of the Mill, offering to be a spy in the “Union” for Thornton, if he will only hire him back. Thornton refuses and sends him away harshly. All the while Mr. Hale and Margaret look on. Then he shows again at the riot. He’s one of the faces next to Boucher and he also picks up a stone/rock to throw.
Again, excellent review and as it’s my all time favorite Period Drama… I totally agree well worth the viewing!
Thank you Lori, I have now corrected my correction! I’m afraid I had Stevens and Boucher completely muddled up with each other. Thanks for the kind words – I’m not sure which is my number one favourite period drama, but this is definitely one of the best.
Great review of my beloved N&S!
I love comparing the book and this adaptation and, If I may, I’d add the scene at the Great Exhibition in London among the ones which are not in the novel. It has been added to the TV series . What its aim is , I can’t really say, but I liked it. Then , the final scene … the symbolical meeting halfway of the two protagonists (who represent two different worlds: the North and the South, the future and the past, modernity and tradition, …). The ideaof the two trains coming from different directions was brilliant , I love it.
The first time I saw the final scene I was so moved! I was so happy for the two of them, especially for JT. I could almost feel, experience his hope and gratification as well as her embarassment. I had to re-watch it a second time to really get the lines… I think it is one of the most romantic endings ever.
Oh yes, I’d forgotten about the Great Exhibition being added in – I really like that scene too, I find it interesting to see Margaret meeting Thornton out of context and in the south and think it makes her see him a new light. It reminds me a bit of Elizabeth running into Darcy at Pemberley in ‘Pride and Prejudice’ and I slightly wonder if that is what inspired this scene – the idea of the heroine seeing the hero in another setting and from another angle, so to speak. The Great Exhibition is fascinating in itself, of course – there are some good websites about it and I love reading about all the things that were on display there. Thank you very much for your comments, Maria, and I agree about the ending.
You are right Judy. In a letter that Sandy Welsh sent to fans back in late 2004/ early 2005, she explained that she included the scene because in the book MH gets to see how JT is admired and “sought” after at the end of the book, at the dinner party at Aunt Shaw’s. SW explained that she thought it was important to the “progression and growth” of MH to see JT out of context and then also admired by those around him.
So you got the idea she was trying to portray perfectly!
Judy,
I have been thinking about this adaptation and why it resonates so strongly. There are other issues that I would like to talk about.
For instance the fact that the difference between the people in Milton and people from Helston, even within the same social class. The wonderful scene when Dixon is interviewing someone to wait on the family and the woman says “I’m not getting at 4 in the morning, and I’m not working for those wages. I can get more working at a mill”. Even the gentlemen have clashes, during the exhibition, Thornton is offended by Lennox’s comment on “dabbling on cotton”
The London Exhibition is a wonderful addition to the book, since, I believe, we sometimes see the whole of the Victorian period as something “static”, this gives a glimpse to a larger world. In which England was the leading trading nation with the newest technologies and the vast colonies (as well as influence, Mr Bell even mentions my corner of the world!). We see England shifting into a more modern nation. The idea of change, and newer ideas, technologies is also very much present in the book. When visiting the parsonage, Margaret has an argument with the new vicar, regarding the preaching methods the Church is now upholding (it seems that at times of change, the Church always retreats to “simpler” ideas in this case, upholding The Book of Common Prayer) I thought that scene was touching, since Margaret loyally defends her father’s thoughts.
Another great theme is the closeness there is between the living and death. It is not a coincidence that Margaret crosses the churchyard to visit the less fortunate families (The Bouchers, the Higgings) and that life and death are very much intertwined. Most of the deaths (except the violent ones, of course) happen in domestic settings, no doctors, nurses or much fuss. One of the best scenes, I think, is the one with Mr Hale talking to his death wife about his teaching, it is both genuine and very moving.
With all these thoughts, you would think that this is a very gloomy and depressing adaptation. But I think they’ve managed to infuse certain moment of light heartedness, especially with Fanny. Just looking at her moving about the Hale’s sitting room in her enormous petticoat is amusing enough.
I promise that now I will try to shut up.
Ailatan
Great comments, Ailatan, please don’t shut up as I’m fascinated to hear your thoughts on this novel and adaptation. I also liked the scene where the girl being interviewed tells Dixon she won’t work those hours – I’ve come across similar real-life accounts in other contexts, for instance in Fanny Trollope’s ‘Domestic Manners of the Americans’, and I think domestic service often didn’t seem a very attractive job if something else was available.
I do also agree about the clashes within classes and the way death is constantly present, with all those journeys through the graveyard – and I’m glad you mentioned that scene at the end with the other vicar, who thinks people shouldn’t read too much and should go for brisk walks instead! I was interested to notice this isn’t in the book in so many words, but that there are suggestions of the new vicar being less intellectual than Mr Hale.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts.
“Bessy in the series is very different from the character in the book, who constantly talks about heaven and quotes from the book of Revelation, in a weird and unearthly way which reminds me at times of Jenny Wren in Dickens’s Our Mutual Friend. In the film, instead of being a pitiful creature who constantly talks about angels, she is a lively girl who could have been a real friend to Margaret – I think this is an example of the series losing a strongly Victorian element and tailoring the emotional content more to modern audiences.”
I don’t know about that. Did young and consumptive working-class women actually talked as Bessie did in the novel? Or was her literary characterization some Victorian ideal or dramatization of how someone in Gaskell’s class believed they should behave?
Thank you for commenting, that’s an interesting question – to be honest I don’t really know the answer and would like to find out more about this. I suspect the portrayal is probably a bit of both, idealising how people should behave and also drawing on reality – Gaskell did know people from Bessy’s class well through living in Manchester and her husband’s work as a minister. This kind of character to me feels very Victorian and I have come across more sentimentalised versions in religious tracts etc, but it also seems all too likely that someone in Bessy’s situation would dwell on accounts of heaven to comfort her. Just to add that I do think Bessy and Dickens’ Jenny Wren are both powerful characters on the page, but difficult to portray on screen quite how they are written.
Lori, thank you very much for quoting Sandy Welch, it’s interesting that she did include this scene to show Thornton out of context. It also strikes me that up to this point Margaret has been in his world – here the tables are turned to some extent as she is the one more at home, in London, although the Great Exhibition is out of the ordinary for both of them, of course!
It’s been a while since I’ve read the novel, although it is one of my favourites, and I was struck afresh by the clever way Gaskell draws parallels between the mill owners and their workers, the union and its members, and the navy and the sailors like Frederick. The plot-line with Frederick, which revolves around an act of mutiny, really draws out the theme of pragmatism vs. principles that runs throughout the story. Margaret’s father points out that regardless of the mitigating factors in Frederick’s case (he and the other sailors were being physically assaulted), the navy cannot afford to be lenient with mutineers. This echoes the hard line that Thornton is forced to take with his workers, and the hard line that the union is forced to take with Boucher. If Thornton was to be lenient, he might lose the mill, and in so doing cost all his workers their livelihood. If the union was to make an exception for Boucher, they would lose their cause. In some ways it echoes the plight of Margaret’s family, because her father chose to protect his principles at the cost of his living, and her whole family suffers as a result.
At the same time, Gaskell shows that Margaret is proud of her father, and that Thornton and Nicholas’s pragmatism comes at a heavy cost. Boucher’s death, which can be attributed both to the union and the mill owners, and yet is not obviously the fault of either, points to what was perhaps Gaskell’s own feeling: that the system itself was flawed. The British mills are all being undercut by cotton from the colonies, specifically from the American South. At the time the novel is set, the Americans still had slaves, and I think the implication is that the mill owners in Britain are being forced to behave cruelly to their own labourers because of this unfair competition. Over the course of the novel, as Margaret and Thornton adapt to each other’s point of view, they seem to reach a compromise in what is sometimes called “enlightened self-interest”. This is what Thornton is practising when he agrees to help provide better meals for his workers, to keep them healthy and strong. He would not have recognized the wisdom of this tactic had he not been able to feel compassion towards them. But even this new approach is not enough to help him, and he is forced to ask Margaret for help.
The plotline about the “speculation” is also interesting. Thornton refuses to speculate and risk ruining the lives of all the people who depend upon him, which is clearly meant to seem admirable. On the other hand, the speculation is a success, and not only his rival mill owner, but Margaret’s benefactor (and by extension Margaret) profit greatly. Again, I think here is an implied criticism of a system that rewards unscrupulous financial practices and punishes integrity and responsibility.
All of this is still very topical today, when off-shoring and fiscal irresponsibility are if anything greater concerns then ever. There are clear elements of Austen in Gaskell’s novel, but I was also reminded of Tolstoy, because of the deft way she manages to describe different class perspectives and compassionately portray the struggles of even the least likable of her characters.
Alison, thank you for your detailed, sensitive comments, which are very interesting and are giving me a lot to think about. It had occurred to me that there were parallels between Frederick rebelling against the ship’s captain and Margaret’s sympathy with the unions taking on the mill owners, and also to a lesser extent with Mr Hale rebelling against the church authorities, but I hadn’t followed it all through like this. I especially like your comments about Boucher’s death being atrtibutable to both sides but probably ultimately down to the system being flawed.
I’m also interested in your comments on the speculation – usually in a 19th-century novel, as soon as anybody speculates, their money is as good as lost, so I think it comes as a shock in ‘North and South’ when the speculator actually comes out on top – which of course often happened in real life – and must agree with you that this is again criticism of the system. And also that it is all too topical.
I take your point about Thornton providing the meals for his workers as “enlightened self-interest”, but he also brings the fruit for the dying Mrs Hale – something which is played up in the mini-series – and I think associating him with food does help to make his character more sympathetic, less stern.
Just brief comments. I loved Judy’s description of mise-en-scene, lighting and landscapes: another way the film speaks to us in the 20th century is its depiction of a factory and a strike. Speaking generally it reminded me a lot of her Our Mutual Friend.
Amid all the modernization and alterations, the one that bothered Victorianists most was the addition of sudden overt violence to Thornton’s character. They didn’t want this darkening of his character; for me it’s an enrichening element not just to the character and themes, but the choice of marriage at the end. Margaret may bring a purse with her, but she is not marrying an emasculated male.
I have a feeling the objection was a dislike of seeing the Victorian era made as casually violent among the middle class as we are used to seeing in films (and off films) today. I suspect it was as and more harsh in private life.
Ellen
Thank you very much for commenting, Ellen. I am among those who was originally taken aback at the addition of the violence at the factory, but, after re-watching, I can see more that it works in terms of darkening the character and also, as you say, in bringing out the violence which existed in that era. It also brings out just how high the stakes are in the industrial disputes in this film.
I was also reminded of Welch’s adaptation of ‘Our Mutual Friend’ – I have that one on DVD and hope to watch it again soon. Judy
I really enjoyed your excellent review but I have not had to time to post a comment until now. I had to rewatch the series before commenting also. (Any excuse!) I only discovered this series about two months ago having missed it when it was shown on TV. I have watched it four times already and of course read the book. Needless to say I love both versions. It easily ranks alongside P&P and War and Peace, (BBC ‘71) my two favourite adaptations.
One of the great strengths of Gaskell’s writing is her characterisation. There is no actually bad character in N&S. The drama is driven entirely by social injustice and misunderstanding caused by social divides, ie masters and men, northern and southern. We are able to understand and relate to both sides of the conflict. The actors in the series do justice to the rich characters. Much though we are caught up in the drama of the two central characters the lessor characters also capture our interest. Nicolas and Mrs Thornton particularly stand out. The scene where Nicolas and Thornton shake hands is one of the highlights of the series and I love the scene where they talk in the silent mill.
I also disliked the scene in the beginning where Thornton is violent towards his worker. I think it is a little overdone but it does establish reasons for disliking the character, required for a modern audience. I think Mrs Gaskell was assuming the bulk of her readership were Southern and would share Margaret’s prejudice against a Northern manufacturer.
Thornton in the beginning is very conscious of his image and the need to appear tough. I think he actually distrusts his workers because they are strangers to him and he is fearful of them. Through Margaret and then Nicolas he comes to know his workers and trust them. That understanding makes him a better master.
Through Margaret he also comes to a understanding of himself and appreciation of virtues which he would have initially considered weaknesses. Thus when Nicolas says “she thought you had a kindness about you”, rather than denying it he acts accordingly.
The novel/tv series throws up many questions such as how one should react to injustice. There is no clear cut right and wrong. Boucher dies tragically as a result of inflexible union rules but he betrays his fellow workers. Just as it seems Fredrick must accept the repercussions of standing up against tyranny.
The saddest thing about watching N&S is that the political/social message is still relevant today.
One of the most obvious departures to the original text is the character of Bessie. The Bessie of the novel is not a character that a modern audience would relate to or be able to sympathise overly with. Her acceptance of mortality is a reflection of the wretchedness of her life. The mere fact that she is dying due to working as a child in the cotton factories is enough to shock modern viewers. Anna Maxwell Martin gave the character such warmth that her death was very moving as it should be.
My only gripe with both book and adaptation is the ending. The novel ending is way to short. I want more. I want to know how Mrs Thornton will react when she learns of the marriage and to hear how Nicolas reacts. I felt a little cheated by the ending. I enjoyed the sheer romance of the TV series ending but at the same time my suspension of disbelief was over stretched by it. I knew at once that I was watching something written by a modern writer. Margaret could not have travelled with Henry or got onto the train with Mr Thornton, nice though it was. And as for the very public kissing, well. I felt neither novel nor tv series ending does justice to what has gone before so I have written my own ending.
There is so much more I could say but this post is already too long.
Janette
Thank you very much for your detailed comments, Janette, and good to hear you love this mini-series too. I agree with you that the violence at the start gives a modern audience reason to dislike Thornton – plus it has recently struck me that it also shows that the violence isn’t all on the side of the striking workers, since here one of the masters hits out too. I’m also interested in what you say about him coming to fear his workers less once he knows them as individuals – and in your comments on Bessie in the series as opposed to the character in the novel.
I do really like the ending, although I agree that you can tell it is by a modern writer – and I also like Gaskell’s ending in the novel even if it is a bit rushed. Thanks again!
Lovely! I have just recently discovered this movie and have not read the book but I have fallen in love! *sigh*
Thank you for this review. I look forward to reading the book!
Through Christ,
LH
Thanks for visiting, Helen, and glad to hear you enjoyed ‘North and South’ – I’m sure you will love the book just as much as the series!
Nicely done. I feel this piece has a great strength and a great weakness. The strength comes in the central two performances of Margaret and Thornton (too bad both actors have been relegated to scrambling for parts, landing rather silly ones since – though Armitage may be poised to come out into a better place now that he’s in The Hobbit) along with a couple of supporting players – Brendan Coyle particularly as Higgins (such a pleasure to see him again in Downton Abbey). However, the great weakness comes in the underwriting and robbing of depth of many of the other secondary characters, particularly Margaret’s parents, their maid Dixon, and particularly Bessy Higgins. Anna Maxwell Martin and the other cast members do a fine job, but the turns of character and values that made each so distinctive have been removed, often for political or religious reasons, I was saddened to note.
All in all, while I think the miniseries is incredibly powerful (Welch really has a gift for writing powerful romantic scenes, as Our Mutual Friend, Jane Eyre, Emma, and this series demonstrate brilliantly), I don’t think it is quite as consistently admirable as Davies’ adaptation of Gaskell’s other great novel. Davies succeeds in capturing the moral and social nuances which make the characters of Gaskell such a delight, while Welch only occasionally manages it – though to her credit, she gets it where it counts in the main characters.
Thank you very much for visiting, Ian, and for posting such thoughtful comments in response to this and some of my other reviews – I will be posting replies over the next day or two. First off, I definitely agree that Welch has a gift for writing powerful romantic scenes and that all the mini-series you mention here bear this out. I find it hard to measure ‘North and South’ against Davies’ adaptation of ‘Wives and Daughters’ because for me they are both great in different ways, but I think you are probably right that he is better on giving weight to the minor characters. On Bessy, as I tried to express in my review, I think the version of the character in the series works well, although she is nothing like the character in Gaskell’s novel.
I think it has been a problem in general for actors working in costume drama that there have been so many cutbacks in this area, leaving them scrabbling around for parts, as you say – there was an article recently in the Radio Times about the current state of TV drama where Richard Armitage said that he has been looking for another role as good as Thornton ever since N&S. I really liked him as Guy in the BBC’s ‘Robin Hood’, but the series wasn’t all that successful in ratings terms towards the end – I’ve never got into ‘Spooks’ though I know a lot of people who like it. As you say, though, doing ‘The Hobbit’ may well boost his career – ‘Lord of the Rings’ didn’t do Sean Bean any harm! I’m not sure what Daniela Denby-Ashe has been doing lately – I haven’t seen her in anything for a long time.
I also think costume drama on TV is now picking up again with the huge success of ‘Downton Abbey’, as you mention, plus the popularity of ‘Lark Rise to Candleford’, which of course also starred Brendan Coyle – and ‘Upstairs Downstairs’ also poised to return.
I think Bessy does work in the series – I just don’t find her memorable.
Fascinating note on costume drama actors – I recently saw Daniela Denby-Ashe in Midsomer Murders in a rather tiny role – actually, I watched the episode for her, since I was curious to see what she’d been up to – but other than that I don’t think she’s been in anything that’s caught international attention. A shame, given the strength of her work in North and South.
I do hope that costume drama makes a comeback – not that I think it was ever really suffering – I feel that the real problem was the marketing, and they’ve finally figured out how to market Downton Abbey correctly. But I’m no studio executive, sadly (or happily).
Daniela denby Ashe is an incredibly talented and a beautiful actress. Life is not fair for her. She was the best actor in north and south. I really wonder why she is not recognized.
I’ve recently been bitten by the costume drama bug. I’ve gone through Emma, Parade’s End and, North and South in a week. And my favorite among them is North and South. Never have I experienced watching something that made me cry from the first episode to the last. I was crying non-stop. I’ve never read the book and strangely enough, whenever I go to bookstores, I’ve never seen this particular book. And I’m the kind of girl of wanders around bookstores for hours and may have memorized where all of the books are located. I was intrigued by this story because of Richard Armitage and also because of his character. For me, this story more than just talks about the class division and stark difference of the country and the industrial side of England but it also talks of men and women’s prejudices towards the opposite sex. Where with Pride and Prejudice it was played romantically, here it was played socially. And that’s the reason why I love this show so much now. Because I always believe that men and women should not judge each other based on our biological nature or sexual disposition. I love both Margaret and John’s characters and it was played wonderfully by both actors.
Now, I am going to read the book :)