thoughts about Poldark

[llywela]

The more I see of this new adaptation of Poldark, the more I want to re-watch the 1970s version, but I can't because I don't own it. It makes me really wish I'd read the books, as well, as the baseline against which to compare both!

I think Aidan Turner is doing a decent job - he's certainly very charismatic, which is just as well since this adaptation is focused very intently on Ross, only catching glimpses of other peoples' stories going on around him, so he has to carry the whole thing. That's one of the big differences I've noticed between this adaptation and the last - the '70s version spent a lot more time getting to know the supporting characters and telling their stories. This is a very lean production, in comparison. It's also a very fast production – short scenes, skipping rapidly through the story. The cinematography is absolutely stunning but I can't help feeling that we're missing out on a lot of atmosphere and depth because of the breakneck pace – it doesn't allow itself to linger on anything, perhaps to its detriment.

I also feel that this production is a bit heavy-handed in its desire to portray Ross as the perfect romantic hero of the story, focusing on the nobler aspects of his character and glossing over his flaws, whereas the 70s version wasn't afraid to show the darker sides of his personality right from the earliest scenes, signalling right up front that this was a complex and potentially dangerous man with strengths and weaknesses in equal measure – that Ross had a lot more bite and edge to him than this one. It's the same basic story, but with the stresses and emphasis in different places - it's interesting to see what a difference it makes.

Comments

[solosundance.livejournal.com]

I agree about the breakneck speed, although they're not doing too bad a job with some of the other characters and non-Ross/Demelza storylines. There's a good sense that there's a lot going on, which reminds me of the books. I'm enjoying it, although already a little tired of Ross galloping along the same stretch of clifftop :) It was fun to see the old Poldark vs new Poldark face-off in the courtroom!

[llywela13.livejournal.com]

Hehe, yes, those gallops across the clifftop tend to be the most lingering scenes in the show - cut out a few of those and perhaps we could spend a teeny bit more time with the characters!

It was really good to see Robin Ellis pop up last night. Turner's Ross is so much tamer than his!

I really must read the books.

[sherrilina.livejournal.com]

Interesting. NGL, I would prefer if they did change his character to be a little less flawed, at least as far as not raping that woman, because I am nhf that. :/ I have been wanting to see Aidan on the small screen again, and am thrilled he is getting such a starring role, but I was rather :O at some of the things I read about what he does.

I really hope this makes it to BBCA soon.

[llywela13.livejournal.com]

The thing is, how far can you change a character and still call it the same character? This is why I wish I'd read the books to have that baseline to compare against. Also, there comes a point where airbrushing away a character's flaws to make them look more heroic becomes a bit unrealistic. 1970s Ross felt more like a real person, warts and all - well intentioned, but imperfect - and less like a romance novel hero. Like I said, funny how a slight shift in emphasis in certain areas can make such a difference to a story. I like this version of Ross, but I do think the show is being a bit heavy-handed in making sure we understand he is the hero.

[llywela13.livejournal.com]

Been thinking about this, after talking with lost_spook, who knows the '70s adaptation and books far better than I do, and the thing is that yes, the story does include Ross doing something terrible, but that's part of the story and if we haven't been shown his selfish, self-destructive streak throughout the show up till that point, it'll be a lot more jarring (unless, of course, it gets airbrushed out of this version, which is playing very safe so far). But the character of Ross Poldark was never intended to be a noble romantic hero. He's a compelling but deeply flawed protagonist, which is something very different. It's a bit like...in Being Human, when Mitchell spirals and commits the Box Tunnel Massacre - he's one of the central protagonists of the show yet he does this terrible thing, and the build-up to that event is clearly shown, so that we understand how and why it happens and are able to continue sympathising with him, but that doesn't mean we're supposed to support or automatically excuse him for his actions. Much the same principle applies with Ross. Neither he nor Elizabeth had ever been able to let go of the relationship they once had, or rather never quite got to have, and eventually that obsession, combined with other circumstances, spirals out of control - and his actions have consequences, poisoning several lives. It's a very dark interlude in a story that doesn't shy away from the uglier aspects of life in the 18th century. The new adaptation is...lighter, so far.

Basically, in the '70s adaptation, Ross was compelling precisely because he was such a contradiction - such a high-minded man, a man of great principle and passion, yet also capable of being so self-destructive and dangerous. He was the antithesis of your standard romantic hero, and that was what made him so interesting - that and the mad chemistry between Robin Ellis and Angharad Rees.

2015 Ross is charismatic and extremely likeable, but so far basically your bog-standard broody romantic hero. Now, I know from Being Human that Aidan Turner is capable of playing much darker, but the choice has clearly been made not to play the story that way, at least so far - so I wonder if the rape will happen at all in this version.

[percysowner.livejournal.com]

I'm really interested in your reviews. We don't get Poldark over here until June and I've been going back and forth on watching it. The original is one of my favorite productions. At least I'll know what to expect. My biggest worry is Demelza, because Angharad Rees's version is one of my favorite characters of all time. What do you think of this Demelza?

It's a shame they've made Ross less flawed, because that was one of his best features, that he could, at times, be a real jerk. I'll probably give the new version a try, but I'll lower my expectations.

[llywela13.livejournal.com]

I am actually really enjoying the new adaptation, but I do find I have to consciously switch off in my head from my memories of the '70s version and watch the new one for the specific slant on the story it is trying to tell. Like, if I hold this Demelza against Angharad Rees, she's always going to pale by comparison because Rees was just that definitive in the role, but if I watch Demelza for who she is in this story, Eleanor Tomlinson is doing a good job, clearly conveying the character's yearning and insecurity with flashes of spirit shining through, just waiting for the opportunity to blossom. As for Ross, I like Turner's version of the character, but have to divorce myself from the character I know from the other version. In 1975 they made a choice to portray Ross's damage and self-destructiveness, warts and all, and it worked wonderfully well, but for this version they've chosen to focus more on Ross's positive traits, smoothing out his rougher edges, and I can appreciate Turner's performance as such. He's playing the character as written for this show, which was uninfluenced by the choices made for the '70s version. I do think they are overplaying Ross as the wronged noble hero and downplaying his less admirable qualities, and it's a shame, but that's the story they've chosen to tell - we'll see how the rest of it plays out!