Nampara

I found it disappointing that Perry Mason has turned out to be a fraudulent attorney in this retelling. I was expecting some sort of twist to change his profession, but I thought it might be something like, "I've been a nonpracticing member of the bar for years; I couldn't hack being in the courtroom due to PTSD and alcoholism. Slumming it as a private eye let me wallow in my misery. But now, I guess I'll have to suck it up to see that justice is done!" Sure, that would have been slightly preposterous, but no more so than what we got. Instead, we saw Our Hero employ a fake apprenticeship attested to by a forged certificate, plus cheating on the bar exam. I suppose basing Mason's legal career on a big lie is appropriate for this more hard-boiled, noir-ish version of the character. Of course a legal white knight in such a cynical universe will turn out to be a secret fraud. But now I can't help thinking more of Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can than of Raymond Burr. In any event, the major fallacy here is the notion that being a good detective -- insightful and handy with facts -- will instantly translate into a brilliant trial performance. A nose for corrupt cops and a passionate belief in the innocence of one's client certainly do not teach someone how to examine a witness properly, either on direct or on cross, how/when to object, how to introduce evidence properly, what the rules of evidence even are, etc. Sure, the show can have Della draft Mason's motions behind the scenes, but once you're on your feet in front of the judge and jury, you have to think and speak on your own. And that takes experience -- lots of it. Mason hasn't even done a moot court! If Della was willing to create a phony legal apprenticeship, why didn't she do it for herself, rather than Mason? Women were admitted to the California Bar as far back as 1878, so her sex wouldn't have been an obstacle. And since she spent every day working in E.B.'s office, claiming that she spent part of the time studying law with him would have been far more plausible than the idea that Perry Mason, a guy who primarily worked on the streets photographing scandal bait, and getting drunk afterward, was diligently reading the law in his spare time. Incidentally, California retains the apprenticeship route as an alternative to law school. That's how Kim Kardashian, who doesn't even have a bachelor's degree, apparently hopes to become eligible for the bar exam. I'm glad that HamBurger has appeared -- one of the best names in the history of TV. Was it supposed to be a joke, or was that an accident by Gardner?

I believe that any format you have to BUY in the U.S. is the uncut version. Only the free PBS website streaming was/is the edited version.

I'm not fond of the story development that apparently is coming, because it will enhance Ross's heroism at the expense of Demelza's. Jeremy's birth is one of Demelza's bravest, most self-sufficient hours. She doesn't need to made into a damsel in distress instead. Perhaps the scene will be staged so that Demelza does the bulk of the work by rowing herself back to shore (in the book, that's the most critical time for her), whereupon Ross pulls her out of the boat and carries her to Nampara. But that raises another potential problem -- and I realize that it's unfair to critique a scene that hasn't even been finalized yet, let alone shown to the audience! -- namely, accounting for Ross's presence at all. Because he absolutely would not have acquiesced in Demelza's starting the fishing trip on her own, it appears that Ross will need to show up by accident and spy Demelza in her struggles. Possible deus ex machina there.

I think "manipulative" is just a TV producer's way of saying, "Watch out, viewers -- you don't know if she is going to be a good character or a bad character!"

Still no actual Caroline Penvenen casting announcement, but the news is out that the role will be played by Gabriella Wilde. Does anyone know whether she's a good actor? If I've seen her in anything, I don't remember it. It looks as though Wilde will be playing Penvenen as a blonde. This continues the practice of keeping different hair colors for Demelza, Elizabeth, and Caroline, but it's funny how the lineup keeps varying from the books (brunette, blonde, redhead) to Poldark 1975 (redhead, blonde, brunette) to Poldark 2015 (redhead, brunette, blonde). Wilde is 26, which is the same age that Judy Geeson was when she filmed her first Poldark series. That's too old for Caroline as she first appears in the story, but if the program eventually gets all the way to The Angry Tide, her age will be a pretty good fit. I also think that Wilde looks younger than Geeson did, which should help for the Series 2 Caroline.

Well, as I've tried to show above, there was also drastically altering the early R-D marriage in terms of both happenings (missing) and emotions (no love). And the R-E elopement story was a huge "crime." It turned their relationship upside-down. Ross gained certain early knowledge of Elizabeth's love for him, and then he changed from the rejected party to the one doing the rejecting! That was a gigantic alteration that really should have eliminated much of the R-E intrigue that occurs in the novels, but the P75 producers couldn't seem to follow through on their radical reinvention of the story. And then there was torching Trenwith to the ground ...

I think that is generally a fair summary, although I'm tempted to say "melodrama" rather than "drama" in the first sentence. Sometimes it's just a matter of knowing how far to go in pushing an "enhanced" version of the story. Both taste and a sense of obligation to the text are required, but often there can be no absolutely certain limit on revisionism. Here's my favorite example: The account of Ross and Demelza's wedding is uneventful, brief, and dry in the novel. Demelza neither leaves Nampara nor even thinks of leaving. There is no proposal scene, no "Ross mulls it over" scene, and no "Demelza is stunned" scene. The wedding itself is merely stated to have occurred; almost no description of the event is provided, other than mundane quantitative details (the couple's ages and the number of witnesses). Ross's reasons for making the decision are addressed summarily, and dispassionately. It's not surprising, therefore, that the producers of both adaptations felt that something had to be added to liven up this absolutely key development in the narrative. Add some spark! Add the sense that this is a monumental step for the characters. And give the audience something to watch. So the 2015 program shows us Demelza thinking over her options, and then glumly setting out on the road back home. She's moving; something is at least happening. (Having her make this choice also adds to the character's "agency," much beloved by contemporary audiences.) Ross has to go after her on horseback to let her know that all is not lost, and that she can stay with him without being relegated to an intolerable servant-mistress role. Then we see the two of them in church, about to take their vows. I think this sequence works quite well. It bends the text just a little, and does not come close to breaking it. The fundamental nature of the marriage, and its timing, remain unchanged. The 1975 producers addressed the same textual shortcoming, but went way overboard. Ross cruelly sends Demelza away permanently! (It was cruel, because in the 1975 version, Demelza told Ross that she loved him before they slept together. That made her even more vulnerable.) Demelza finds out she's pregnant! Her father is beating her again! Ross and Elizabeth make a bold plan together; Demelza becomes desperate about her situation, etc., etc. Every conflict that could have been injected was injected. The adaptation of this part of the story exceeded the bounds of both good taste and editorial discretion, in my view. On the "romance" point, here's my general attitude: I understand the opinion that an adaptation should not make Ross and Demelza happier than they are in the novels. I might not agree with that perspective these days, but I respect it: Embrace Graham's vision whole; give the audience the entire world he created, warts, deaths, VBTs, and all. However, I see no legitimate rationale for making Ross and Demelza less happy than they are in the novels, and P75 tends to do that, unfortunately.

I'm surprised the BBC hasn't made an announcement yet about the casting for Caroline Penvenen. Isn't filming supposed to start in about a month?

Some belated additional thoughts on Poldark 1975. In my very first post in this forum, I mentioned my adolescent fondness for the 1970s Poldark and especially for Angharad Rees' Demelza. (I'd link directly to the post if I could, but there doesn't appear to be a way to do that in this forum. It's back on page 2 of this thread.) Because Series 1 of Poldark 2015 has completed its U.S. airings and the Poldrums are approaching, I thought I'd watch a few episodes of Poldark 1975 for old times' sake. It's been decades since I've seen any of these; my comments here have been based on recall. I watched episodes 3, 4, 5, and 8, and also 16, even though the 2015 equivalent won't air until next year. Much of the following probably has been said before, and maybe said multiple times, but these are some of my immediate reactions upon a fresh, post-2015-version viewing of some pieces of the 1975 series: The program has more outdoor scenes than I recalled (still not as many as the 2015 version, of course), and many of them are quite well-done. The BBC was clearly making an effort to produce a show with a more "epic," less claustrophic feel than most programs of its era. I only wish the camera work and/or the weather had cooperated to produce more skies that weren't solid white. The music has even less impact than I stated in my comment in the music thread here. Aside from the main theme, there's just so little of it. The 2015 score is a constant, emotionally engaging presence. Having adjusted to that pungent musical storytelling atmosphere, I missed it. Most of the actors playing major characters seem a few years too old for their roles. In general, they certainly look older to me than their 2015 counterparts. No doubt makeup, hair, and costuming choices had an impact, but the cast just seemed less able to pass for younger versions of themselves than today's cast. Even Rees didn't convince as a teenager. She was 26 at the time Poldark 1975 was filmed (but some sources say she was 31, which I could believe). Eleanor Tomlinson was 22 when her series was filmed. Keren Daniel really was portrayed as more attractive, sympathetic, and nuanced than in the new series. Prudie was much more likable and generally involved in things. Blamey and Verity looked like George and Martha Washington. Dr. Choake looked like Sir Isaac Newton. The first novel, Ross Poldark, was butchered. It wasn't simply the "shotgun marriage" story created out of thin air. The Ross-Elizabeth elopement plot point bordered on the insane, was out of character (vis-à-vis the novels, that is) for both of them, and threw the balance among the three key characters way out of whack. The entirety of the wonderful early stages of Ross and Demelza's marriage was cut out. No pilchard scene, no visit from Verity, no learning to be genteel, no first Christmas at Trenwith, and no triumphant song from Demelza. And of course no falling in love for Ross! The first book is ultimately an uplifting book. Ross and Demelza each start off at rock bottom in their respective milieus, then find each other and slowly work their way up in a very unconventional way. At the close, they are happy with each other. The equivalent chapter of Poldark 75 ends grimly, almost tragically. It was heartbreaking to see Demelza weeping in despair at the end of episode 8 because she was convinced that her marriage as well as her daughter had died. (Rees was always very touching when she cried.) Ross's subsequent assurances to her were tender, but what's this? He had never told Demelza he loved her until after Julia's death? That was very wrong. My wife had some specific comments about the main characters and some of the action, including the fact that she hated the 1975 Elizabeth. (She did agree with me in feeling a bit sorry for Elizabeth when Ross broke off their elopement because he had decided he must wed Demelza. You know Ross is behaving terribly when Elizabeth earns sympathy from me in a "triangle" storyline!) But in the end, she just boiled it down to, "That's not my Ross Poldark." I'm afraid I had to concur for the most part with respect to those early episodes. Ross in the books and in the 2015 program marries Demelza for sex, companionship, and honor, but he also has real affection for her, and it is not surprising when it is depicted as quickly growing into love. Ross in 1975 marries a pregnancy rather than a woman. He seems largely unconcerned that poor Demelza is trying to stagger all the way to Truro to get a dangerous abortion, until he learns that the child is his. (More agonizing tears from Demelza when he catches up with her. Even in an "alternative universe" storyline, I still hate to see Demelza suffer.) Ross and Elizabeth are sucking face both immediately before Ross sleeps with Demelza and then afterward as well, and Ross tells Elizabeth that he loves her within earshot of Demelza after he tells Demelza that he will marry her. As I said, just grim.

How far ahead do you want to go? Basically, he stays rich, and doesn't die. He has altercations with Ross. In book 4, which is named after him, he marries Elizabeth after Francis dies. We expect to see this dramatized in Series 2. Elizabeth and George have children, which become storyline generators in books 5-7. George also is in and out of Parliament. An older version of him continues to have adventures in books 8-12.

More regret than affection, I would say. Both Francis and Elizabeth realized that they did not share and probably would never share the kind of mutual deep feeling that was on display between Demelza and Ross. They both appeared to feel some pain over that, and also perhaps some shame for having allowed their marriage to flop with so little effort put in on either side to improve it. But I agree that the song prompted Francis to reflect on his life and his family, if only for a short while. He failed to follow up his moment of enlightenment with any concrete steps to soften his relationship with Elizabeth. The departure scene the next morning is telling. The Nampara Poldarks exchange warm goodbyes with the Trenwith Poldarks, and then Ross and Demelza walk away arm in arm. Elizabeth glances briefly at Francis as if she expects, or even hopes, that he will take her arm and lead her back into the house. But Francis has turned and walked in alone. Elizabeth's face registers a quick "Nothing has changed" note of chagrin, and then she too re-enters Trenwith.

Using "chew" in connection with Aunt Agatha is most appropriate. Whenever the character is shown at a table, she's eating like a horse! (E.g., end of episode 2; episode 4 Christmas dinner.) I think it's intended as a running joke. Agatha blames Uncle Charles' diet for his heart problems and notes that she herself is an ascetic eater, but in fact she likes nothing better than a full plate in front of her.

Very generally, I would describe the Poldark narratives as incident-driven, meaning that the story is pushed forward by having things happen to people, and more often than not bad things. Many of these are deaths, as episode 8 shows.

The loss of Julia was terrible, and was very poignantly dramatized, but I would not want to live in a literary world in which Demelza is killed off. I'd have to somehow wipe from my memory the experience of ever having watched the program or read the books. I think Series 1 reflects the fact that Winston Graham, though a lively and very entertaining writer, does have what I consider an inordinate fondess for killing characters. Joshua (off camera), Lord Bassett, Andrew's first wife (off camera), Uncle Charles, Jim, Keren, Julia, Matthew, just to start the saga.

Clearly Winston Graham's subtle demonstration, via endorsement by the addled Jud, of the folly of Lamarckism.

"Triangle" update — A couple of items related to my July 23 post above. First, it's clear that the "Love of my life"/"She will never take me" dialogue is not being swept under the rug by the producers. To the contrary, they are selling it. The official Poldark Facebook page has a photo of Ross speaking to Elizabeth in that scene, with the key line quoted, as an activity generator (apparently a successful one). And I should have mentioned this in my original post, but "Love of My Life" is the title of one of the tracks on the Poldark soundtrack album. Now that the final episode has been shown in the United States, here's a new question to supplement those in the first post: Does the audience believe that the program depicted a resolution of the “triangle” in episode 8? Yes. From what I have seen, this reaction has been virtually unanimous in both the U.S. and the U.K. among those relying on the on-screen evidence alone (no references to the books). One professional recapper summarized the crucial scene this way: "There it is: Ross loves Demelza! He loves Demelza and not Elizabeth. Phew. At least something kind of good (for everyone but Elizabeth) happened." The reactions of individual audience members on various websites are along the lines of "Yes!" and "He finally put Elizabeth in her place" and "I'm so glad he loves Demelza!" It was also fascinating to see how many fans commented that, "I needed to hear him say that!" This sentiment confirms my speculation that viewers would demand closure on this issue; indeed, apparently many people longed for such resolution even knowing that the program had been renewed for 2016. The BBC understands its audience, no doubt. But I believe the "needed to hear him say that" feeling goes beyond the simple desire for a definitive answer to the show's (partially contrived) Demelza vs. Elizabeth question. It also strongly reflects these fans' desire for a particular answer: after all the pain they endured in watching episodes 7 and especially 8, they needed the comfort of having the Ross-Demelza romantic pairing confirmed explicitly for them and protected against further doubt.

I have very fond memories of Poldark 1975, and I've previously commented in this thread about some differences between the two adaptations. I try not to think of it as an outright competition between the two versions, especially when that would mean comparing a set of eight episodes with a set of 29 episodes, with the latter set probably having been mulled over and internalized for years. One distinct impression I do have at the moment is that watching the 2015 version is, for me, more like actually being present with these characters in 18th century Cornwall. It's a combination of the more intimate directing style (especially by Bazalgette), the cinematography, and the music, I suppose. However, I doubt that the current adaptation will be able to match what for me and my brother was one of the absurd highlights of the original version: the coaching of Jud to be a witness against Ross at his trial. It was a superb "foole" at his best. I'm relying on 40-year-old memories here, but the scene included stuff like this: "I dearly luvved me muther, sir. 'What's become a ye, Jud?' she'd say. 'What's become a ye, Jud my son!'" [Guiding him away from his memories and back to the testimony:] "Captain Poldark roused you." "Cap'n Poldark rowsed me." "And he said ..." "Oi dunno wot 'e said!" "He said there were pickings for all! He told you there were pickings for all! Again." "Cap'n Poldark rowsed me." "There was a wreck." "Thare wuz a wreck ... an' thare wuz pickins fer all!"

Based solely on what is dramatized in the program, Jud's attack does seem to have been somewhat randomly generated. I think the only points the audience is supposed to get are that Jud is a mean drunk, and that this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Ross is not going allow himself to be declared a philanderer and a murderer, and his wife to be called a prostitute ("trull") to her face, by a servant. Interestingly, when Jud and Prudie are leaving, Jud mutters something to the effect that he can't understand his banishment because this was nothing worse than what he'd said before!

Well, within the context of the story as presented to us, it appears that legal action was not regarded by the Poldarks as a realistic option, but I think a decent case against George actually could be assembled. Francis lost money and his mine to George's cousin at a card party in George's house, to which Francis had been invited by George. It also would be easy to show that the loss and subsequent closing of Grambler inured to George's financial benefit. Later, Ross was in the process of being cheated by George's same cousin at a ball in George's house, to which Ross had been invited by George. And George personally urged Ross to play cards with his cousin, and mentioned Francis's losses as an incentive. A fraudulent conspiracy claim against George seems quite viable to me, at least by today's standards.

Yes, that's a good point. Both incidents were "softened" somewhat, in order to make Blamey more palatable as a partner for Verity, and in order to make Ross more palatable as a man who helps an accidental killer, rather than a cold-blooded murderer, escape the law. But the end result for viewers is a bit of disquieting deja vu.

I've already said my piece on episode 8 above, but here are some additional stray observations: George's little speech to Elizabeth was crazily inappropriate. "I will no longer have my feelings misunderstood — or my intentions." How can a gentleman have "intentions" toward a married woman?! In that era, such a statement would have been tantamount to a proposal of marriage, so it was totally improper for George to address someone's wife that way. If Demelza was well enough to leave the house at the end, why didn't Ross take her to visit Julia's grave? A cliffside goodbye ceremony is necessary for someone who dies at sea, but not for a person buried in a nearby family plot. (The "cliffhanger" was dramatic, I'll grant that.) I knew that the "Resurgam" musical cue was too good to waste on the closing of Grambler (episode 5)! The music is resurrected, so to speak, for Ross and Demelza's final scene.

Back to the music for a minute — here's a good article about score composer Anne Dudley: http://www.filmmusicsociety.org/news_events/features/2015/072715.html. A few tidbits: Good news that the Poldark soundtrack is deservedly popular. So it appears I was at least half-right in my analysis of the main theme. The solo violin represents Ross. This reminds of the relationship between Prokofiev and Eisenstein on Alexander Nevsky. I guess we are not the only ones with track-list ideas. :) And that's good news about a possible second album. My wife loves the Poldark soundtrack, but of course her favorite track is one that wasn't even on the album until I added it: "I D' Pluck a Fair Rose." She's a very good singer, and this kind of tune is right in her wheelhouse, so she found the lyrics online and has learned the song.

That event took place at the end of the 1975 series (episode 16, I suppose). Trenwith was burned down. It did not happen in the books. Would have been at the end of Warleggan, but it did not occur.

I didn't try to make it a spoiler thread because I figured people who haven't read books 3 and 4 would still want to talk about what might unfold in Series 2, based on what happened in Series 1. The thread as a whole is for topics like Series 2 dates and production plans as well as discussion of possible Series 2 storylines. Edited to add that I wouldn't consider it a spoiler to mention new characters who, based on the books, are expected to appear in Series 2, and to discuss which actors might play them. I'd consider it a spoiler only if specific plot points involving those characters were revealed. However, I'm not a mod and I don't make the rules here.

If we do get the 10 episodes, will they be divided 5/5 between the two novels covered? That would be the logical approach, and would be consistent with Series 1, but I wonder whether a 4/6 split for Series 2 might not work better. Jeremy Poldark deals more with external events, while Warleggan focuses more on character development, and is a considerably longer book. The themes of the latter might benefit from a more thorough exploration. (I assume that a 4.5/5.5 division would not be practical or artistically desirable.)