Jamaica Inn

1363739414244

Comments

  • ScoutletScoutlet Posts: 517
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    So Mary is actually attracted to him?! Or she is just sort of drawn to him in a way she doesn't understand? Not exactly sexual? And is she NOT afraid Jem will become him? Does she find him less charismatic, or is she just wary of him being too much like Joss?

    In this version I thought Mary wanted to protect her aunt from Joss, and needed to figure him out in order to survive living there and find a way through the situation. And he wanted to sort of "claim" her: he wanted to drag her down with him so he didn't have to feel so terrible about himself. Or just for the Hell of it, IDK.

    But Jem, as you said, is pretty clearly not "evil." He's a ne'er-do-well, feckless scamp and ladies' man. He wouldn't abuse her, but she doesn't trust him to be faithful and reliable either.

    That's about all I got from him. That, and she wanted to be sure he wasn't embroiled in his brother's wrongdoings to the point of being criminally complicit. She didn't want any part of that.

    But for the most part, their romance seemed like a fairly common trope: a woman with a strong sense of morality and desire for independence falls for a petty thief who she fears will make her a slave to her emotions.

    Well, I say "trope" but IMO it is really an enduring classic. If the story is well-told and the actors/characters have great chemistry, it's hard to resist. And I definitely thought both were true in this case. I loved the love story and the wrecking scene.

    But the smuggling story and the love story intersected but were not as intricately enmeshed as they should have been. And the wrecking scene was a highlight because it really the only scene in which I thought Mary herself was under threat from Joss.

    LOL, I say all that not having read the book. I am just gleaning stuff from what you said.
  • SapphicGrrlSapphicGrrl Posts: 3,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Scoutlet wrote: »
    So Mary is actually attracted to him?! Or she is just sort of drawn to him in a way she doesn't understand? Not exactly sexual?

    And is she NOT afraid Jem will become him? Does she find him less charismatic, or is she just wary of him being too much like Joss?
    Yes - and yes-ish! :D But that's just my opinion, don't just listen to my burblings, have a sniff around at other reviews of the book - they will help you to make sense of the plot, and why Mary acts in the way that she does.

    I personally think this is a really good one:-

    http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/novelreadings/defying-man-and-storm-daphne-du-maurier-jamaica-inn/

    One of the most interesting sentences in it is, "the power of sexual attraction to lure people off course is one of the novel’s central interests", which I totally go along with. (But do we get that sense from the TV version?? :confused: )
  • J.RJ.R Posts: 2,953
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Scoutlet wrote: »
    I just found out that the sister was a character created for the show. Strange choice.

    It made sense that Mary would trust the Vicar because he seemed wise and morally sound, the very voice she needed to keep her from losing her bearings in her frightening environment.

    But the sister? Despite her sweet/supportive act, she seemed pretty creepy from the start. The voice, the crazy eyes? Mary wasn't a perfect judge of character but she seemed smart enough to at least get a weird vibe off of her. I certainly did.

    I wish they hadn't included her. She almost seemed liked comic relief, although she was quite chilling at times.

    I think - but not at all sure - that the Vicar was supposed to be a bit schizoid and that she was put in to be his weird self - something to that effect anyway. I thought she was verging on comedy weird myself. I had one moment when she reminded me of the Igor character from Frankenstein! I expect you know that the Vicar in the book is albino and because of that described as a freak - obviously they needed a way round that so perhaps she was the freaky weird part??!
  • ScoutletScoutlet Posts: 517
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    J.R wrote: »
    I think - but not at all sure - that the Vicar was supposed to be a bit schizoid and that she was put in to be his weird self - something to that effect anyway. I thought she was verging on comedy weird myself. I had one moment when she reminded me of the Igor character from Frankenstein! I expect you know that the Vicar in the book is albino and because of that described as a freak - obviously they needed a way round that so perhaps she was the freaky weird part??!

    Yes, I know he was Albino and some were put out that he was not one in this version.

    But I think the writer made a good point when she said they did not make him Albino because the visual would give viewers an immediate sense that he was untrustworthy and twisted. Albino is sometimes used to "signify" that. Like in the movie "Foul Play."

    It would have been too obvious from the start. Not to mention kind of offensive to people who are Albino themselves and don't deserve to be equated with "sinister."

    I think she made a good case for her choice there. Not so much with the sister.
  • valkayvalkay Posts: 15,726
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Scoutlet wrote: »
    Yes, I know he was Albino and some were put out that he was not one in this version.

    But I think the writer made a good point when she said they did not make him Albino because the visual would give viewers an immediate sense that he was untrustworthy and twisted. Albino is sometimes used to "signify" that. Like in the movie "Foul Play."

    It would have been too obvious from the start. Not to mention kind of offensive to people who are Albino themselves and don't deserve to be equated with "sinister."

    I think she made a good case for her choice there. Not so much with the sister.

    Also the Da Vinci Code had a villainous albino.
  • SapphicGrrlSapphicGrrl Posts: 3,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Scoutlet wrote: »
    I think she made a good case for her choice there. Not so much with the sister.
    It didn't help that she was played by 'Moaning Myrtle' (such a funny little actress! I find it hard to take her seriously in many of her roles - unless it's a squeaky-voiced midget part, she doesn't really fit in?). Now I must apologise, because I'm not one of these 'personal attack' merchants, really I'm not - just saying that the sister came over as rather odd on many levels! :blush:
  • Andy-BAndy-B Posts: 6,800
    Forum Member
    I started to think she may have been a disciple feeding his ironic God delusion ....
  • opal88opal88 Posts: 1,178
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I love the character of Mary Yellam and I thought she was captured here - she was very physical and nothing like some of the more passive heroines portrayed in Victorian fiction. I think it's interesting that Daphne du Maurier made her pre-Victorian and therefore outside the moral code of that time.

    My questions about the production centre round Joss - in the book he's over seven foot tall so his presence alone causes people to become gibbering wrecks and this wasn't conveyed for me here - he reminded me more of Danny Dyer getting a bit shirty in the Queen Vic. The Vicar was well played and I liked the sister - she conveyed the underlying strangeness in the family without having to resort to a physical stereotype.

    I think the twist in the tale is one of the best ever in fiction and they did that pretty well. Generally good overall but spoiled somewhat by miscasting the male protagonist.
  • JT EffectJT Effect Posts: 5,177
    Forum Member
    It didn't help that she was played by 'Moaning Myrtle' (such a funny little actress! I find it hard to take her seriously in many of her roles - unless it's a squeaky-voiced midget part, she doesn't really fit in?). Now I must apologise, because I'm not one of these 'personal attack' merchants, really I'm not - just saying that the sister came over as rather odd on many levels! :blush:

    I agree re: Shirley Henderson - I can never take her seriously as an actress - she has a very particular way of speaking and just 'being' that kind of spoils the illusion for me of her embodying a role ... I always end of thinking 'Oh, there's Shirley Henderson doing her usual schtick.'

    I found her part in Southcliffe particularly difficult to empathise with.

    This thread has really made me want to read the book, so at least something good has come out of the drama.
  • SapphicGrrlSapphicGrrl Posts: 3,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    opal88 wrote: »
    I love the character of Mary Yellam and I thought she was captured here - she was very physical and nothing like some of the more passive heroines portrayed in Victorian fiction. I think it's interesting that Daphne du Maurier made her pre-Victorian and therefore outside the moral code of that time.

    My questions about the production centre round Joss - in the book he's over seven foot tall so his presence alone causes people to become gibbering wrecks and this wasn't conveyed for me here - he reminded me more of Danny Dyer getting a bit shirty in the Queen Vic. The Vicar was well played and I liked the sister - she conveyed the underlying strangeness in the family without having to resort to a physical stereotype.

    I think the twist in the tale is one of the best ever in fiction and they did that pretty well. Generally good overall but spoiled somewhat by miscasting the male protagonist.
    Are you a latecomer? Feel free to join in the 'English Lit class' in the recent previous postings! ;-) (You've made exactly my point!)
  • ScoutletScoutlet Posts: 517
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It didn't help that she was played by 'Moaning Myrtle' (such a funny little actress! I find it hard to take her seriously in many of her roles - unless it's a squeaky-voiced midget part, she doesn't really fit in?). Now I must apologise, because I'm not one of these 'personal attack' merchants, really I'm not - just saying that the sister came over as rather odd on many levels! :blush:


    It doesn't sound like a personal attack. You just think it was poor casting? The actress fits some roles but not others. She didn't fit this one, which probably should never had been added in the first place.
  • SapphicGrrlSapphicGrrl Posts: 3,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Scoutlet wrote: »
    It doesn't sound like a personal attack. You just think it was poor casting? The actress fits some roles but not others. She didn't fit this one, which probably should never had been added in the first place.
    Yes, I must admit - the sister shouldn't have been there at all! (And poor old Shirley Henderson always seems to end up with the 'wizened little nutcase' roles too - I suppose it makes her a living, but she must get a bit fed up with it sometimes. However, as JT Effect noted, perhaps that's all she can do.)

    (Just slightly nervous of the 'personal attack attackers' on here, lol....... ;-) )
  • ScoutletScoutlet Posts: 517
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    opal88 wrote: »
    I love the character of Mary Yellam and I thought she was captured here - she was very physical and nothing like some of the more passive heroines portrayed in Victorian fiction. I think it's interesting that Daphne du Maurier made her pre-Victorian and therefore outside the moral code of that time.

    My questions about the production centre round Joss - in the book he's over seven foot tall so his presence alone causes people to become gibbering wrecks and this wasn't conveyed for me here - he reminded me more of Danny Dyer getting a bit shirty in the Queen Vic. The Vicar was well played and I liked the sister - she conveyed the underlying strangeness in the family without having to resort to a physical stereotype.

    I think the twist in the tale is one of the best ever in fiction and they did that pretty well. Generally good overall but spoiled somewhat by miscasting the male protagonist.



    I agree. Mary was a hard-working, no-nonsense farm girl and it came across as such. She had moral principles but not the Victorian sort. The Victorian era saw the onset of the "cult of domesticity" that more tightly confined women to the household and their roles as mothers, pretty soft creatures to be protected and in turn maintain the "sanctity of the home."

    I think some would have preferred the more "plucky heroine" type rather than a strong, taciturn, almost stern young woman like this Mary. But to me she felt true to the role she had to play: a stalwart figure, fighting the tide of amorality and brutality that surrounded her.

    Well, that's a bit melodramatic! LOL. But I liked her performance. It worked well for me. She was strong and wary, but at times vulnerable. With Jem she let her softer, almost girlish side emerge at the inn. And you saw her heartbreak when he left, how she hated that her emotions had made her weak (or so she thought).

    I thought she captured it beautifully. Her version of it, anyway, which I imagine was the version the writer and director had in mind as well.

    The director whom some seem to think should fall on her sword! Count me in the camp who think she should acknowledge the complaints but not apologize for her artistic choices.

    I guess when it comes to the muttering from Joss, she should say "My Bad." But I would not want her to point fingers at the actor because that's a rotten thing to do.
  • SapphicGrrlSapphicGrrl Posts: 3,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Scoutlet, I've just welcomed opal88 to our English class. ;-) :D (Did you read that review by the way? I posted a link earlier.)
  • ScoutletScoutlet Posts: 517
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Scoutlet, I've just welcomed opal88 to our English class. ;-) :D (Did you read that review by the way? I posted a link earlier.)

    Oh wow! Just as I had posted that! Exactly, I agree! Mary was "a farm girl, bred to the soil." She was earthy. She knew that she was sexually attracted to Jem and didn't have prettified notions of romance like a proper, genteel girl would have.

    That's why she found him dangerous I guess. The more she saw him the more she'd be tempted by her desire for him. As turned out to be exactly the case!

    That is what I saw in JBF's Mary: a no-nonsense, earthy girl. Not a sweet romantic thing like Will's fiancé. And that's how she came across.

    I like the scene where Jem said: "you're hard as flint!" She was. I liked her that way, even if she was less "likable." She felt like part of the landscape, of her physical environment. And at that time people were far more connected to the land. They had no choice: they were ruled by it.

    And in the end she said she wanted to be "back in her own fields." In other words, get HERSELF back. She was adrift (forgive the sea reference).

    The more I think about it the more it makes sense.
  • J.RJ.R Posts: 2,953
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Maybe one reason the sister character didnt work (for some of us at least) was that not one word she spoke , action or reaction comes from the book so she 'feels' different, out of place.
    I have no problem in general with a character being added or their part expanded if it is for an actual reason. When a book contains a lot of narration or a characters 'thoughts' it makes sense to put someone in to speak those lines or to have them spoken to. She didnt add anything for me in fact I found her a distraction. I thought she drew attention to the vicar by being so weird whereas - considering their were so few men to fill the roll of Joss' nemesis - it might have been better to be someone who would help confirm his lovely, kind, trustworthy front. .
    I have to admit I'm beginning to feel a bit sorry for Sean Harris. I didn't really know him before this (although recognised his face) but I gather he is excellent at the druggy/alcoholic psycho type so I presume he was cast deliberately and that was what was required of him. As others have said unfortunately it just dosnt work - that he could control one and all with a look! Too much of the complaints and ridicule does seem to be landing unfairly on his shoulders.
  • Andy-BAndy-B Posts: 6,800
    Forum Member
    He may not have been 7' but he had some shoulders.

    For Mary, a/the big development point seemed to be being told her father was not the man she thought he was, did it set her free....
  • J.RJ.R Posts: 2,953
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Andy-B wrote: »
    He may not have been 7' but he had some shoulders.

    For Mary, a/the big development point seemed to be being told her father was not the man she thought he was, did it set her free....

    I never understood why she believed him so easily to be honest. Joss was a cruel drunkard who would enjoy ruining Marys memories of her father and her Aunt wouldn't have the courage to disagree. If anyone told me my father wasn't what I thought him to be I'd give them a serious flea in their ear!
  • ScoutletScoutlet Posts: 517
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    J.R wrote: »
    I never understood why she believed him so easily to be honest. Joss was a cruel drunkard who would enjoy ruining Marys memories of her father and her Aunt wouldn't have the courage to disagree. If anyone told me my father wasn't what I thought him to be I'd give them a serious flea in their ear!

    I think she just had an intuition he was telling the truth. And she could tell from the look on her Aunt's face. Maybe her mother always told her that her father was killed by smugglers but never gave her details and changed the subject.

    When she thought back on it, it made sense?
  • Grumpy_AlanGrumpy_Alan Posts: 1,672
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Scoutlet wrote: »
    ...
    The director whom some seem to think should fall on her sword! Count me in the camp who think she should acknowledge the complaints but not apologize for her artistic choices.

    I guess when it comes to the muttering from Joss, she should say "My Bad." But I would not want her to point fingers at the actor because that's a rotten thing to do.

    Why not point the finger at the actor, who, if he had any awareness of his performance, must have realized that all of his efforts were wasted because no one could understand a word he said. Perhaps he doesn't care although that may imply a cerain arrogance that would not become him.
  • J.RJ.R Posts: 2,953
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Her first clue that people are not always what they seem! She was definitely a strong heroine instead of the usual Victorian 'fit of the vapours' type. It was published in the early 30's I gather so perhaps weak and feeble heroines were going out of fashion then.
  • ScoutletScoutlet Posts: 517
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Why not point the finger at the actor, who, if he had any awareness of his performance, must have realized that all of his efforts were wasted because no one could understand a word he said. Perhaps he doesn't care although that may imply a cerain arrogance that would not become him.

    I just think it is poor form for a director to point the finger at an actor. She was his boss, and it was her job to guide him and tell him what wasn't working.

    It's fine for viewers to fault the actor but IMO it would be unprofessional of the director to "blame" him and would just end up making her look worse.

    Harris is going to be hurt enough by this. He doesn't need her to pile on with the rest of the gang in order to get the message.

    And if he is so arrogant as to not learn anything? Well, then he'll suffer for it and he'll deserve what he gets.
  • Andy-BAndy-B Posts: 6,800
    Forum Member
    This would not have been the actors decision. There would have been endless meeetings at BBC Drama about how to physically manifest all the problems the character has (in a 350 page book), and then combining that with time and place.

    Surely people have more grasp of how a script gets from page to 3-hour production?
  • ScoutletScoutlet Posts: 517
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Andy-B wrote: »
    This would not have been the actors decision. There would have been endless meeetings at BBC Drama about how to physically manifest all the problems the character has (in a 350 page book), and then combining that with time and place.

    Surely people have more grasp of how a script gets from page to 3-hour production?

    Apparently I don't! I am not in the business. I have done theater but at an amateur level so of course it works differently.

    Bear in mind that I did not have a problem with Harris' performance. I had not read the book so I did not have a completely different picture of Joss in my mind. Now that I have read comments from book readers, I can see why they felt he was wrong for the role and/or did not play it as he should have. Mainly because he was not as physically imposing or charismatic as portrayed in the book.

    But I'll take your word for it that this was a multi-step process and the actor did his job as best he could in the circumstances. I can see how that would happen. He didn't cast himself, write the script, choose the style or direct himself. He acted the role as written and directed.

    But of course as an actor he is responsible for his performance to some degree. That has to be the case. Actors are not just puppets.

    So anyway, I am not "blaming" him because I enjoyed the series and think he delivered what they wanted him to deliver. But having absorbed the comments from those familiar with the book? I think it might have been better to go with a more towering actor and breath more charisma into him (through writing, directing and acting) to make it more clear why he was such a scary and powerful force.

    If for no other reason than it might have prevented this whole feeding frenzy from happening in the first place. I liked the show and I am enjoying discussing it with posters who are not gleefully and hyperbolically bashing everything about it.

    People are free to express their opinions and it's fun to have a variety. And some of the snarky comments are hilarious and even apt. I do get a kick out of them, but I prefer the conversation we have going now! I am learning something from it.

    It's interesting to discuss what worked and what didn't. It's not that interesting to read multiple posts calling for the heads of the director and Sean Harris and TPTB of the BBC on a platter. I've never seen anything like it. Why the outrage? You'd think it was a massive corruption scandal or something.

    I thought this series was very well-done, if not perfect. Evocative, well-acted (for the most part), beautifully filmed, and honest. Give me this over yet another vanilla period drama any day. And for that matter, give me characters talking and behaving like real people instead of emoting and projecting like stage actors in a medium that doesn't call for it.
  • anyonefortennisanyonefortennis Posts: 111,858
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Did they feature this show on Points of View?
This discussion has been closed.