Product Description

Studio: Wgbh Wholesale Release Date: 04/15/2008 Run time: 86 minutes

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #49276 in DVD
• Brand: WGBH HOME VIDEO
• Released on: 2008-04-15
• Rating: NR (Not Rated)
• Aspect ratio: 1.33:1
• Formats: Closed-captioned, Color, DVD, NTSC
• Original language: English
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 86 minutes

Features

• A fresh and poignant adaptation of E.M. Forster'sic novel, A Room with a View tells the story of the coming of age of Lucy Honeychurch in 1912 Florence, Italy. Longing to burst free from the repression of British upper manners and mores, she must wrestle with her inner romantic longings to choose between the passionate George and the priggish but socially suitable Cecil. Format: DVD MOVIE

Amazon.com
Made for Britain’s ITV network, this Masterpiece presentation of A Room with a View introduces a fuller version of E.M Forster's 1908 novel. If it isn't as romantic as Merchant Ivory's 1985 film--with that picturesque kiss at the end--Nicholas Renton's adaptation offers its own unique charms. For one, it provides a look at the self-possessed woman Lucy Honeychurch (Elaine Cassidy, Felicia's Journey) a decade after her Italian sojourn. The action alternates, somewhat confusingly, between 1912 and 1922. In both cases, Lucy travels from Surrey to Florence. On the first trip, she and her companion, Miss Bartlett (a fidgety Sophie Thompson) are both taken aback by the left-leaning Mr. Emerson (Timothy Spall) and his railway clerk son, George (Rafe Spall). Not only are the men outspoken in their views, but George is Lucy's social inferior. Despite the obvious attraction between them, she accepts a proposal from the bookish Cecil Vyse (Laurence Fox, giving a more sympathetic performance than Daniel Day-Lewis). For the tragic ending, screenwriter Andrew Davies (Bleak House) draws on notes the author left behind, but didn’t incorporate into his book. Ideally, Davies should've turned to Forster's more upbeat 1958 epilogue A View without a Room. Further, it takes awhile to warm up to the central character (previously portrayed by Helena Bonham Carter), though Cassidy ultimately rises to the occasion--especially in the post-war sequences. It's unfortunate Davies didn’t support her efforts with stronger material. --Kathleen C. Fennessy

Review
"...a rich, romantic, finely cast production about repressed early-20th century England..." --Brian Lowry, Variety

Review
"[Elaine] Cassidy gives an exceptionally natural performance as Lucy, engaging in the age-old and very Jane Austin-ish internal battle between heart and head." --Brian Lowry, Variety

Customer Reviews

Could have been so much better...
I didn't hate this version of Room With a View. Yes, I have seen the Merchant Ivory version. Yes, I have read the book. Although I thought the cast of the Merchant Ivory production was magnificent, I actually like a great deal of the cast in this adaptation as well, so I was prepared to view this with an open mind and not hate it instantly because it wasn't Merchant Ivory. I have seen several of this cast (Cassidy, Cusak, Thompson, Spall) in other productions and thought they were wonderful. The aspects of this production I found most disappointing were the script and direction. I found the dialogue to be lackluster, and the interpretation of some of the characters (primarily Cecil) just plain dull. I have admired some of Davies' adaptations in the past, but his more recent works seem to have an underlying conceit in them that I find distasteful, as though he would deign to "improve" the works of the authors he is adapting. Davies is, indeed a gifted and talented man, but is he really so lofty that he feels capable of enhancing Austen, Forster, and Waugh? He had a wonderful cast of people to work with for this adaptation, but their performances were never going to reach the stellar level they were capable of when the script they were given to work with was second rate. I know there was a time limitation, but the story was just diluted and unnecessary additions were made (the additional meeting with the gig driver, George's death, etc)that seemed to serve no purpose other than to needlessly outrage the audience. I don't understand why Davies feels the need to shock a response out of his audience, rather than impress them with quality. That cheapens the whole production. This production wasn't awful, but if could have been so much better.

What were they thinking?!
If you're a fan of this great novel, do not watch this adaptation. The acting was very lack luster and it just didn't capture the feel and the essence of the novel. There was no wit and so many things were either added or changed. There was no need for a sex scene when so much about the novel is about repressed sexuality and freedom to make choices. It did not have to be spelled out for the viewer. The transformation of Lucy Honeychurch was barely touched upon and I think E.M. Forster's underlying messages were completely lost.

I have no idea what they were thinking when they decided to change the ending. I watched it open mouthed in disbelief. It was unnecessary and I think it totally took away the meaning of the novel. The ending is supposed to make you feel optimistic and good, despite the obstacles the lovers face. This ending was depressing and sad. I think the viewers were cheated.

If you want to watch a better adaptation, watch the 1985 version with Helena Bonham Carter, Julian Sands and Maggie Smith. No, it's not a perfect adaptation if you want it to be completely true to the book, but it follows the novel much more closely and the casting is wonderful. Julian Sands, in my opinion, perfectly portrayed George Emerson and Maggie Smith was wonderful as Charlotte Bartlett. Denholm Elliot was incredibly believable in his touching portrayal of the older Mr. Emerson.

I'm only giving this adaptation one star because it was visually pleasant to watch. Otherwise I think one star may have been pushing it.

A horrible mess!
I will state upfront that I'm a huge EM Forster fan and the Merchant/Ivory version of this novel is one of my all-time favorites, so when I first heard that Masterpiece Theatre was going to film their own version, I thought: Blasphemy!!!! lol But I took my chances and just finished watching this version on PBS. Why bother? There may have been a scene or two that you don't see in the Merchant/Ivory version, that is true to the book (the Roman scenes for instance) but this version was what I call a "why bother". Nothing new or interesting was added to this version (except the last 15 minutes, which is horrible!). The acting was average at best, the script almost boring and the ending....don't even get me started! Spolier alert (which never happens in the book, or M/I version): Lucy might possibly fall in love with the Italian carriage guide? Please! I'm a romantic at heart, but come on! Another spoiler alert: and George Emerson dying on the battlefields! What? Yes the screenwriter has said that he came across a postscript that Forster wrote 50 years later, but even Andrew Davies has changed that! Leave the novel alone....it's just as perfect as it is! Needless to say, skip this version and go directly to Merchant/Ivory!