From that standpoint, I have nothing to say about how this production was adapted. I'd love to see where he left off and where the screenwriter had to fill in the gaps. I haven't read The Mystery of Edwin Drood yet and it has now moved up the list of Dickens books that I want to read. Way too many twists are attempted in this latter part so that it feels muddled and ludicrous, nothing like Dickens at all. The ending is particularly bad, hinging around one massive plot hole/contrivance (a character appearing from nowhere at just the right time) that it's impossible to ignore. It's clear that this segment wasn't written by Dickens, instead completed by the scriptwriter. What a shame, then, that the second part just doesn't hold up. Kudos too for the familiar character actors fleshing out more minor roles: Julia McKenzie, Ian McNeice and Alun Armstrong all acquit themselves well, and Rory Kinnear (FIRST MEN IN THE MOON) seems to be going from strength to strength. It's split into two instalments, and the first does admirably well in setting up the chessboard of characters: Matthew Rhys (BROTHERS AND SISTERS) is great as the sweaty and sinister Jack Jasper. My viewing of this one benefited from not having read the famously incomplete story that Dickens died during writing. The hilarious scenes involving churchyard urchin Deputy are alone better than anything in that other awful production. The good news is that it's a damn sight better than GREAT EXPECTATIONS, being noticeably more 'Dickensian' in feel, with plenty of amusingly monkeyed supporting characters. THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD is the second of two Dickens adaptations that the BBC showed over the New Year 2011/2012. In conclusion, solid and very well-done especially for the performances. Freddie Fox shows command of the Dickenesian language, Tamzin Merchant is appealingly pert and Rory Kinnear, Ian McNeise, Julia MacKenzie and Alun Armstrong turn in strongly dependable performances too.
It is a very well-performed adaptation too, Matthew Rhys steals the show, intense and heartfelt it is a brilliant performance. The story is tense and suspenseful, with some good twists and turns and very compelling storytelling, more so in the first half admittedly. The dialogue is carefully and intelligently adapted, making an effort to sound Dickenesian and not too contemporary, also nobly developing the characters in rich detail. But it is very handsomely filmed and remarkably authentic to the period it's set in, while the score is unobtrusive and hauntingly beautiful. It does suffer from incompleteness(the book doesn't help) and its contrived and abrupt ending. This adaptation is not perfect but does nobly with its source material. Ī writing contest was hosted for several years in the town of Brattleboro to commemorate the hoax publisher, and will be re-launched in October of 2022.The Mystery of Edwin Drood is both captivating and frustrating, captivating in its tension and suspense as well as the titular character and frustrating in its incompleteness. Subsequent scholarship has later debated the authenticity and similarity of the work to the original Dickens. With a successful marketing campaign, the book became an item of comment in the literary community, with an essay by Arthur Conan Doyle in The Bookman negatively comparing the continuation of the novel with the original work.
The book, published in 1873 under the title Part Second of the Mystery of Edwin Drood, was reviewed by the New York Times, as well as regional newspapers, like the Salem Observer. James) was a publisher in Brattleboro, Vermont best known for publishing a completion of Charles Dickens' The Mystery of Edwin Drood claimed to be written by the spirit of Dickens channeled through a spiritualist summoning.
0 kommentar(er)
