DVD : Gormenghast [2000]

Rating: - Hard to see how this could be any better.
Ignore those who say that this doesn't do justice to the books - it's different, yes, but in a good way. What's the point in sitting down to watch something that's EXACTLY like the book, or complaining because it doesn't EXACTLY match what you thought it should look like? The BBC made an amazing job of what was almost impossible to film, and the cast is just perfect. Jonathan Rhys Meyers plays Steerpike with more than a touch of genius, and the chemistry between him and Fuchsia is spot-on... Everything about this is awe-inspiring; the sets, the scripts, the acting. Admittedly, Warren Mitchell's portrayal of Barquentine is more comical and capricious than the fearsome and powerful character in the book, but it works. Likewise, Irma Prunesquallor seems more ridiculous on the screen than she does on the page, but a bit of comic relief does wonders for this exquisitely dark production. The word 'masterpiece' is overused, or else I would not hesitate to describe Gormenghast as such. It is easy to forgive the odd bit of artistic licence, and when you consider that they have managed to compress three extremely complex books into four hours of fantastic viewing, it's difficult to find fault.

---

Rating: - Awesome
I read the books in 1990, although I got a bit bored of the last one I have to admit and didnt finish it. The character I found hardest to believe was Steerpike at the start - I imagined him to be a trifle more ugly and more sinister.
Prunesquallor, Irma and Flay were excellently played I thought. I thought the scene with the hot water bottle was hilarious. And not a bad bit of acting by Master Chalk too, handsome bird.
Lots of great costumes and scenery. A jolly good watch.

---

Rating: - Simply not Gormenghast at all!
Sorry, Beeb, but this to me is not the Gormenghast of the books, and I am amazed by other reviewers' celebration of it.

For a start, I hate all this light and colour. Surely the feel of the books is very, very dark in every sense.

Just because Mervyn Peake was born and spent much of his life in China, I believe the set-designers wrong to assume that that was all that was in his head. How many readers imagine this colourful, sunny, Orient-meets-the-Ukraine look ? Surely the Gormenghast of the book is every dark, dank, dusty European castle you've ever visited rolled into one and multiplied a thousandfold - its characters emerging from shadows in rooms and corridors that fade into infinity. There is no sense of the SCALE of Gormenghast in this production - and tatty flat-looking matte and process shots just WILL NOT DO ! If you can only illustrate it badly, then SUGGEST, with good lighting and photography the infinity beyond ! Make us FEEL the vastness !

Many characters look OK, but surely Steerpike should be a punky, skinny, Johnny Rotten lookalike (look at Peake's drawing) - not this long-locked New Romantic.

So who's going to watch this? The books have clearly been read by a minority (note all those TV critics who owned up, around transmission time, not to have read it !) - and apart from the faithful, (whom I'd have thought) would be disappointed, this production is not, I fear, going to pull in the uninitiated. For despite condensing two books into four hours (I don't believe "Titus Alone" is included - no bad thing) and editing character movement, the piece has no pace at all. So, while I and other Gormenghast fans will probably watch out of a sense of loyalty and curiosity, I'd call this production an expensive turkey, I'm afraid.

But what is really so, so maddening (for me) is the wasted opportunity. The Beeb got the go-ahead, and then disastrously blew it - and surely queered the pitch (at least for a while) for other producers! Actually, in the wake of the quite superbly-filmed "Lord of the Rings," perhaps Peter Jackson should have a crack at it! The darkness and weight he brought to that - playing it for real, not sending it up, camply, which this does, is to me very much the essence of Gormenghast - not achieved here.

So, top marks for trying, Beeb, but very low marks for achievement - could and should have done better !

---

Rating: - Visual Absorption
I watched Gormenghast when it was originally shown on BBC television and was totally raptured. From the outset, it appears you have a window into a lustrous, animated, impressionist, surrealist painting; such are the amazing backdrops of the extensive, eclectic, idiosynchratic castle alongside the costumes, expressions and eccentricities of the characters. It really feels like you have entered the imaginations of a flamboyant distopian; Gormenghast is all at once rich, beautiful, haggard and doomed. The intensity of the film, the strength of the characters and the epic nature of the story may be a little too much for some viewers (like a particularly rich chocolate gateau) but it is fun and handily divided into four parts.

Now for the issue of the book versus the televised version. As previously said, I watched the television series when it was first broadcast. I managed to wade my way through the trilogy of books (the last of which is not included in the adaptation) in the last year. It is true that the adaptation makes necessary exclusions and changes to enable it to be digested on film. My opinion on re-makes and adaptations is that if significant changes have been made, it can only be chastised if it affects the enjoyment of the original: in the case of Gormenghast, when I read the novels, the television adaptation soon lost its influence; I saw nearly all of the characters differently (apart from the sister Clarice and Cora) and enjoyed the books on their own merit.

Therefore, despite the changes and somewhat misinterpreted characters (such as Fuschia - a character I empathised with in the books, but cannot in the film) I think the BBC adaptation is a beautiful, exciting, disturbing achievement and should be enjoyed alongside the books. Well done, Auntie!

---

Rating: - Calm down everyone
So it's not a word for word interpretation of the book. as everyone agrees - that would be impossible. but why must adaptations always be judged solely by how exactly they match the original source? this is a fantastic work in its own right and should be judged thus. adapting and changing the story for film doesnt detract anything from a person's enjoyment of the original novel! read the novel and watch this - they are both equally as good, just in different ways, so it's no use exhaustivley comparing them just enjoy each.