ME TOO!! I do it all the time!!

I think a lupine (wolfish) look would have worked. Someone who looks like a brute but is not dim-witted like the portrayal in the BBC version (strong accent clearly means that they're thick). It was just reverting to stereotypes of 'rural folk'.

This is my feeling. I think that it's a good portrayal of the type that he'd been told to play but that the interpretation didn't work. It's very weaselly of the director/writer not to stick up for him when it's their artistic choices that are the issue.

To an extent yes, but those aren't the natural accents of the actors; they're faked and the remnants of RADA came through at times in JBF's adopted one. Surely the onus is on the actors to make the accents they choose (because there's no unity in their accents) understandable? By far the worst for me in this respect was Brokeback Mountain.

Whilst it's admirable to attempt authenticity, the creators didn't capture the feel of Cornwall at all, and I find it a bit of a patronising attitude. They wouldn't go about saying that they were creating an authentic Scottish/Irish drama without having some natives involved, so I don't see how they're qualified to claim authenticity here; particularly as the landscape is noticeably not Cornish, as is apparant when they show the few bits that are in Cornwall!

They would have been better going with an adventure story/fantasy type feel. Shakespeare made no attempt at authenticity and he did all right!

what is RADA?

Sorry, looked it up. Yeah, I agree it did creep in a few times. I noticed it when she said "how many wives do you happen to have?". And maybe a couple of other times. But then her regional accent was not that strong anyway so it wasn't as noticeable.

I thought MM was good with the accent: consistent but intelligible. But IDK if it was the RIGHT accent. It just seemed to work.

It's closer to a Plymouth accent but it worked well. There was enough of a twang for it to be clear that he was from further down South than Bristol or Hardy county and it was understandable. The place where Jamaica Inn is set isn't in the depths of Cornwall so there's no reason why they'd have to have a strong accent.

http://www.digitalspy.com/british-tv...oDcNg694dsjRtR


Speaking of accents DS posted this article about 10 other examples of mumbling actors. It's pretty funny.

Scroll down #8 and check out Jeff Bridges in True Grit. I'd be curious to see if anyone here can make out what he is saying. He got as Oscar nom for this performanece

Interesting. I found a link to the series on Google (Yes it's illegal, I assume. Sue me.). And this one definitely sounded different to the BBC Player link.

The dialogue was just as clear and intelligible as on BBC Player, to me. But the music was different! It was much louder, too loud. Some people complained about that and based on this I could see why it was a problem. Also the other background noise like the sound of the rain, etc.

It was still fine overall to me, but the balance of music/sound and dialogue was not nearly as good as on BBC Player and that did impact the overall viewing experience. So maybe this was part of the problem with the series as broadcast on TV?

Trying to clear old stuff from my digi box. Last night I watched all 3 episodes of Death Comes To Pemberley and tonight just finished all 3 episodes of Jamaica INN (with sub tiles switches on in case I missed anything)
I really enjoyed Pemberley, the story and the lovely setting of CHatsworth House. But tonight I found Jamaica Inn very disappointing and struggled to keep any interest. Where was the beautiful scenery of Cornwall, the moors and the coastline, where did the story have ANY realism or cohesion and the "shoot out" ( if you could call it that) was like something from a Benny Hill comedy.
Conclusion - could do better.

as was discussed a few pages ago, there were two things going on with accents; there was a general attempt to remind the audience of time and place i.e. 19th century Coooooooornwallllll. In addition, there was, in Joss, the desire to manifest in his speech an uneducated, unconfident bully who'd had a tortured upbringing and who was also on the brink of breakdown. He grunted, he swaggered.

Lawrence Olivier as a very precise, clipped and somewhat posh Henry V he wasn't.

I found an interesting parallel between this series and Parades End.

They are very different programs obviously, which I would think would appeal to different audiences. The only thing they have in common is both are period dramas set in the UK.

But they met a similar fate. Parades End debuted to about 3M viewers, which is high for BBC2. But it lost 1/3 of its audience on the second night (it was five parts total) and never recovered.

JI lost 1/4 the second night and has lost 1/3 by the third night.

The complaints? Exact same: mumbling actors, slow pace, hard to follow.

Of course Parades End got better reviews, but to be fair JI got very strong reviews from pre-screeners. After the Sound Scandal erupted the reviews were mixed and most of the coverage was on the sound/mumbling issue alone, the blame game and the BBC.

Anyway, I thought it was interesting. And from what I remember the viewers were not enthralled by Parades End as much as the critics were. Certainly not the ones that stopped watching, I imagine.

I watched one episode of Parades End. I was impressed by Rebecca Hall and thought the acting was good overall, although Cumberbatch didn't appeal to me in that role. I think he's a bit overrated.

But I didn't come back for another episode, I admit. Not because I thought it was bad but just because I could not get invested.

I think critics would be more inclined to like that series anyway. For one, there was no "sound scandal," just a loss of viewers due in part to mumbling. There were complaints but no media frenzy. And the source material is just more high-minded and sophisticated, which appeals to critics.

Personally I liked JI better. But the point they both struggled with the same issues that ended up alienating about the same percentage of the audience.

And they were trying to depict 1820s Cornwall, not 2010s Cornwall. Having locals involved seems beside the point to me.

The 2010 version of True Grit (which is great) takes place in Arkansas and Oklahoma in the late 19th century. It was filmed in Central Texas and New Mexico. The actors and extras were not locals from the states depicted in the film. But it still delivered enough authenticity to be convincing.

If you are from the UK and not familiar with the US it might not seem like a big deal to use Central Texas and New Mexico to represent Oklahoma and Arkansas, but it is. Texas is enormous. It's twice the size of Germany. The topography in Central Texas is unique and completely different to the area it was meant to depict. So is the topography of New Mexico. So is the accent, for that matter.

But no one enjoyed the film any less because of it or complained that it didn't look and sound completely historically accurate. It depicted the look and feel and sound well enough.

A view that many would share