tue 21/10/2014

Parade's End, BBC Two | TV reviews, news & interviews

Parade's End, BBC Two

An ambitious attempt to bring Ford Madox Ford's magnum opus to the small screen is not entirely successful

Adalaide Clemens (Valentine Wannop), Benedict Cumberbatch (Christopher Tietjens) and Rebecca Hall (Sylvia Tietjens) might be acting in different dramas

Television schedules seem not to matter much any more, since we can now watch on repeat more or less any time we choose. But it still seems strange that the BBC are airing their new five-part period drama, which is part-funded by the HBO network to the tune of £12 million, on a Friday evening in the middle of August – even though it’s turned out to be ideal weather for staying in. And Parade’s End ticks all the right boxes, too – all bar one, perhaps: it’s lovely to look at, it features a top-drawer British cast, and there’s the screenplay by Tom Stoppard.

In other words it reeks of serious quality drama, but one, since it’s set at the cusp of and during the First World War, that still has room for Downton Abbey comparisons. Win, win. There’s also a whiff of Birdsong in there, though any further nod in that direction would be pushing it, since the two authors occupy opposite literary hemispheres. Ford Madox Ford wasn’t the Sebastian Faulks of his day, though who can say whether anyone will be reading Faulks in 80 years' time?

Occasionally, Hall and Cumberbatch appear to be acting in different dramas

The till now neglected quartet of novels that make up Parade’s End are difficult, elusive, impressionistic. Ford wrote his tetralogy between 1924 and 1928 and the books look back upon an England that disappeared almost overnight with the coming of war. But neither the books nor the adaptation are interested in revisiting the myth of a pre-war golden age: firstly, we get a small sense of things already stirring afoot in old England, but, more importantly, it’s the exploration of an interior life that matters here. Events unfold through the eyes of its central character, and often events give way to unstructured, fragmentary thought-impressions. Ford doesn’t quite go as far as Joyce in disrupting linear narrative, but there are serious challenges for an adaptation.

Benedict Cumberbatch plays Christopher Tietjens, billed as “the last Tory” and “the cleverest man in England”. Indeed, there is something of the Sherlock Holmes in this brilliant government statistician, though here Cumberbatch adopts a deeper voice, and wears blond highlights and a fat suit. His forensic intelligence – put to use not in sleuthing but in making corrections in the margins of the Encyclopaedia Britannica – together with a clinical air of impenetrability, both intrigue and drive his faithless wife into a fury, so much so that she wishes to puncture her husband’s stiff moral rectitude by sexually tormenting him.

As the shallow, spoilt and self-absorbed wife whom Tietjens marries when she falls pregnant with a child which may or may not be his, Rebecca Hall appears somewhat miscast. Hall’s face and gestures flicker with a sensitive intelligence which she struggles to play against and which seem quite at odds with Sylvia Tietjens's monstrous character. Perhaps Hall might have swapped roles with Adelaide Clemens, who, as Valentine Wannop, is the young, in fact alarmingly young-looking, suffragette whom Tietjens falls for. Yet even Wannop’s impish, sparring feistiness goes strangely flat during her exchanges with Tietjens.

Rufus Sewell as Reverend DucheminThere are problems, too, with an erratic tone, as we find we’ve occasionally veered into daft comedy. Rufus Sewell, as the mad, scatological Reverend Duchemin (pictured right), seems to have wandered in as a character extra from Cold Comfort Farm. And Sylvia’s foot-stamping, upper-class ennui plays against the grain not just of Hall’s instincts as an actor but of much of the writing and direction elsewhere. Occasionally, Hall and Cumberbatch appear to be acting in different dramas.

Stoppard and Susanna White, who directs, have been valiantly ambitious in trying to tame Ford’s magnum opus for the screen, but unwelcome confusions remain. I watched the first episode twice and I’m not sure these were cleared on a second viewing. I shall, however, continue to watch with interest since, despite its flaws and whatever difficulties remain in capturing it, there's substance here.  

Follow @FisunGuner on Twitter

His forensic intelligence, together with a clinical air of impenetrability, both intrigue and drive his faithless wife into a fury

Share this article

Comments

This was turgid, soulless

This was turgid, soulless rubbish fawned over by the chattering classes who will only acknowledge in hindsight what nonsense this production was. Tom Stoppard's screenplay was incomprehensible and totally unrealistic . Depth? Don't make me laugh, more like a shallow soap opera with nice costumes.

Almost impossible to follow,

Almost impossible to follow, terribly cut together, and a real disappointment, but not surprisingly, it is addictive, probably because of the costumes, setting, and quality of actors. Confused.

My husband and I were really

My husband and I were really excited about this new 'superior Downton' - but then so disappointed by the poor enunciation/mumbling/soft focus projection of the text - I reckon that overall I missed about a third of what was said, about equally across the actors. The story and multiplicity of characters makes it complicated to follow in any case - why jeopardise the viewer's chance of getting hooked by such a fundamental error? I then realised that this is simply never a problem with 'Downton' - is this the difference between mid- and high- brow fare?

With the plotline so hard to

With the plotline so hard to follow, it would have benefitted greatly if one could what the actors wre saying! Too much mumbling, unnecessary background noise, etc. Might give it one more try, not sure yet.

This is not an easy watch and

This is not an easy watch and I did wonder what Benedict C. meant in his interviews about it being very funny in parts. Then I saw the scene with the bonkers curate and fell off the sofa laughing. Very subtile acting. I think this series will improve as it goes along, but it is a challenge - which makes a refreshing change from all that Downton rubbish.

Give me Downton any day

Give me Downton any day

I found this episode of

I found this episode of Parade's End dull and disappointing. I am not sure if it is Stoppard's script, the direction or the acting. The romantic scenes in the fog left me cold. What is going on? There is a comparison with Bird Song to be made; another hugely disappointing production, and disappointing in a similar way, with scenes that just did not work. And don't get me started on the sound quality! Will not bother with this again - so much was lost in the execution.

I think Rebecca Hall is

I think Rebecca Hall is marvellous in this,steals every scene.

I agree about Rebecca Hall,

I agree about Rebecca Hall, though I suppose her modernity might help make the point of the clash of the old and the new for some people. I also can't settle down with Adelaide Clemens' wandering vowels and intonation. If they had to use an Australian actress why not make Valentine Australian - perfectly plausible in the time of Olive Schreiner and Katherine Mansfield. As it is my belief in the character is shattered every time she speaks.

I quite agree with Hall.

I quite agree with Hall. There's something inauthentic about his acting here which is odd because I've seen her in a lot of things and I think she's great. Stephen Graham and Cumberbatch though fit perfectly to their characters. And I must say that I was rather surprised that Clemens has a somewhat husky voice. It doesn't fit her appearance at all. And yes, this has way more substance than Downton.

I disagree with everything

I disagree with everything but one. Hall is great actress but she seem to be too-smart-looking to play Sylvia. I don't know, yeah. I think that's it.

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Use to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Subscribe to theartsdesk.com

Thank you for continuing to read our work on theartsdesk.com. For unlimited access to every article in its entirety, including our archive of more than 7,000 pieces, we're asking for £2.95 per month or £25 per year. We feel it's a very good deal, and hope you do too.

To take an annual subscription now simply click here.

And if you're looking for that extra gift for a friend or family member, why not treat them to a theartsdesk.com gift subscription?

newsletter

Get a weekly digest of our critical highlights in your inbox each Thursday!

Simply enter your email address in the box below

View previous newsletters