Frankly, I did not expect that the series can be made from the great Galsworthy novel, all the more so superb! Its creators managed to transfer to the screen not only the main events, but also the spirit of the book, sometimes ironic, sometimes sad; were able to convincingly show the opposition of Beauty and Art on the one hand, and selfishness and possessiveness on the other.
All actors are perfectly matched, each in its own place. Of particular admiration is the play of Damian Lewis (Soames) and Gina McKee (Irene). Irene turned out fine, despite some differences in the appearance of the actress and her character. We can say that this image in the series is even more real than in the novel itself, where Irene is rather a kind of abstract embodiment of Beauty and not so vivid character as members of the Forsyth family.
As for Soames, we can only say 'Bravo!' Damian Lewis was able to perfectly convey the character of his character, one of the most complex and controversial in world literature. Soames is not only a cold, unreceptive egoist, but also a person who loves and suffers and who, in spite of everything, causes pity and understanding.
I strongly advise you to watch the series and / or read the novel. You definitely won’t lose time in vain.
10 out of 10
More recently, I read John Galsworthy's Forsyte Saga. Impressions are indelible. Atmosphere, events ... Impressions for eternity.
I decided to watch the series. I admit, I was not impressed.
Firstly, the actors.
Soames. Both in the book and in the cinema, he did not arouse my sympathy and sympathy. And in the performance of Demian Lewis, it generally seems like a negative hero. Although, if you think about it, he is a loving husband, whose honor is hurt and from which his property was taken away - his wife.
Young Jolyon. Rupert Graves' performance is pretty cute, though too soft (too often he cries on the screen).
Irene. Well, I don’t know where they looked when they took Gina McKee for this role. According to the book, Irene is a very, very attractive woman. In the film - the exact opposite. Only lips, “warm,” as Galsworthy wrote and appear in her from that Irene that we should have seen. McKee didn’t finish, and she’s too thin for this role, or dresses are chosen in a terrible way. During the scene where she is dancing at the ball with Bosini, her anorexic figure is simply scary.
In general, all the actors are chosen something like that.
But the atmosphere of foggy London is conveyed more than colorfully. Cabs and carriages, then vintage cars, dresses and dresses. .., all this is very pleasing to the eye. Home furnishings, paintings on walls, furniture ...
Overall I would put 6 out of 10
P.S. I advise those who read the book to watch, as it is quite easy to get confused in family relationships.
I admit I didn’t read the work, and I watched this series only because Christian Coulson, my dearly beloved, plays in it. And I did not regret it.
The atmosphere of that time was conveyed perfectly and, I think, the main events were presented. The cast is well-chosen, except that Irene did not like the performance of Gina McKee (in appearance). Soames Damian Lewis is gorgeous! Incredible acting. I believed him.
The most favorite series are 6 and 7, because Christian plays in them. Jolly Forsyth in his performance is unique, and the character himself impresses me.
Great movie adaptation of the classics.
The novel The Forsyte Saga is one of my favorite books. After the characteristically naive film adaptation of 1949 with Errol Flynn, I expected a lot from the modern film. And -. ..
The filmmakers decided to 'expand' Galsworthy, adding, for example, a background that was not in the book. The film does not begin with the engagement of June, but with the engagement of Winifrid and Darcy and at the same time the novel of young Jolion with the governess little June. And the whole film was shot on the principle of the series - unhurried, with numerous detailed conversations.
In this film adaptation of the novel, it is surprisingly egregious, as if special miscasting. Where in the book it is written that the hero is blond, he is brunette, and vice versa. June is not red, Suizin is not large. Honestly, I'm at a loss as to what kind of doom or insanity Gin McKee got for the role of Irene. Have good actresses transferred to Britain who would have been beautiful at the same time? About the famous hair 'the color of fallen leaves' I do not even say! I remember the story of filming the film 'Pride and Prejudice' -99 (the same Air Force, by the way), when Jennifer Ely worried that she would not be taken on the role of Lizzy, because she has blonde hair, and the heroine in the book has dark. But the color of the hair in the book by Jane Austen was not so emphasized as that of Galsworthy.
But hair color is not even the main thing. And even though it’s a shame that the heroes and heroines who are said to be beautiful, attractive, with a special twist are hardly attractive on the screen, and those about whom it is not said are simply ugly - even this is not so important.
The saddest thing is that there is no 'pedigree' that was given such importance in the Victorian era, and which Galsworthy mentions so many times.Funny as it may seem, Soames is the only hero in whom at least a little “breed” and some signs of Victorian upbringing are felt. The vast majority of the remaining characters, both the older generation and the young, can be characterized in one word - 'vulgar.' Especially women.
The atmosphere is NOT TRANSFERRED. On the contrary, Galsworthy’s atmosphere is largely lost. This is facilitated by everything - from the discarded CONTRACTION (such an important feature of the British) to the bed scenes and underlined obscene kisses. Everything has its place. Yes, people multiplied in the Victorian era, but the desire to show it to the viewer, yes brighter, era kills. But alas, the creators of the film apparently decided that 70 years after writing the novel, they know and understand the era better than the author of the book.
On makeup, I can also note that the characters look the same at the beginning of the series, and thirty (!) Years later.
Not transmitted characters. The heroes of Galsworthy are vivid personalities very complex for actors, each with their own characteristics, which, nevertheless, when played well, are able to glorify their performers. Did not work out. There are no Jolyons, no Suisin, no June (instead of a decisive and impetuous girl there is just a too lively and always giggling young lady), Winifried Darty is not a lady, but a marketer from the market, Holly is also not a lady, and Fleur is not the same. Against their background, Irene looks more decent, but everything kills her appearance - when in the film they say that Soames's wife is “such a beauty”, you do not know whether to laugh or cry. Irene’s game is becoming implausible - what would be appropriate for a very beautiful woman looks strange in a plain woman.
Of the men, the most respectable is Soames.But the filmmakers, trying to show Soames as a living person, succeeded in something even less than Errol Flynn in 1949, limited by the scope of the then manner of filming - he was even better able to play a man whose tragedy is that he sincerely has these views on life and property.
Perhaps, not bad against the background of other Bosini, he is not bad at all, and he is trying very hard to show how he differs from the Forsytes in sincerity and liveliness. If the latter were distinguished by greater restraint and good manners, he would have succeeded better.
Conclusion - it is very unfortunate that the filmmakers did not react more carefully to the beautiful novel. Those who really love the book and are interested in the era, I am afraid, will experience disappointment.
What is here from Galsworthy?
I used to think that only foreigners who do not feel the spirit of the book and generally poorly understand who the author can remove the disgusting film adaptation of the novel. it turned out, however, that even the Air Force company, famous for its excellent film adaptations, could allow such a mistake.
It seems that the authors of the script did not read the beautiful work of John Galsworthy, but heard something somewhere. they completely ignored the mass of facts that the author pays attention to almost every page.
The cast deserves a separate discussion. only Soames, Fleur and the younger John, well, Darty, got into the image. all the others are like lay people who are ready to cast a spell on the author as long as they are paid. no one resembles his image from a book; everyone does not give a damn about the atmosphere of the era. Young Jolyon looks like a floor rag, which the “beauty” wipes his feet unnoticed even for him (here it’s no longer funny!) Irene. the whole film, he only does that cries. Bosini is as weak as the rest of the men in the book. there is not a single strong noble image, not a single one! all mediocre and ugly.
Soames is better than the rest, he is even sorry. unlike Irene. you feel sympathy for her first series. and then she begins to annoy her with strange oddities in her appearance. Gina Mackey is a talented and, in general, a pleasant woman, but this role is not hers.
It is also strange that for half a century the characters do not change completely! Soames's whiskey doesn't even turn gray! they apparently saved on make-up artists.
In general, for those who have bothered to read the entire cycle of the 'Saga', the impression is not pleasant.
6 out of 10
Why are you divided ?!
And if each series on a separate disk came out, would they also be offered to evaluate it on their own? Not seriously. Some heroes, one story — let at least a dozen and a half seasons in the film adaptation — what does it change ?! I don’t understand.
By the way, since we are talking about this, so be it. A valuable quality, an indisputable advantage of this film adaptation is the preservation of a single acting ensemble throughout the entire filming process. Even my beloved “North and South” cannot boast of such an achievement. And here - please. Respect.
On the other hand, the flip side of the coin is also what is called on the surface: playing the same character for half a century is not an easy task. Especially if the make-up artist does anything, but not his direct duties. As a result, you are 25, that 45 - no difference. Fortunately, in the last series, even wrinkles with gray hairs were added - and thanks for that. However, for all, as I understand it, this good was not enough. The main character as a result of perhaps limping and posture somehow tried to make it clear that she had long gone on a pension. Obvious flaw.
And the second moment - until I forgot. At first I wanted to even call the review that name, but I got angry that I had to break it into two parts, and replayed it at the last moment. So here. "Twelve years later." In extreme cases, five. Once - two weeks. Honestly, every time there was a "change of scenery", I saw the next caption. Not a movie, but fast-forward is easy. The editing director, definitely, approached the work an order of magnitude more responsible than the make-up artist, to be sure.
As well as a costume designer. I will not undertake to assess the historical fidelity of the toilets, but the change of eras in terms of the “packaging” of representatives and representatives of the upper world by the authors of the picture has been demonstrated very clearly - this is undoubtedly.
Perhaps we dwell on this. The technical side as a whole is over, and the plot and Co., I believe, deserve a separate discussion. For example, on the page of the second season of the film adaptation. The assessment in this case will be the same:
5 out of 10
Drops of honey in a fly in the ointment
Comparison of the work of the directors Christopher Menola and Dave Moore with the legendary 1966 series was inevitable for me. My verdict: the creation of 2002 unconditionally lost to the old series, although it seems to have obviously had an advantage, primarily in terms of wider technical capabilities. Immediately make a reservation that the picture itself in the 2002 film is impressive, everything is done at a high level. Cameraman Sue Gibson and a team of artists composed of Stephen Fineren , Peter Bull , Neil Wilkinson and Phoebe De Gaye worked extremely professionally, as a result of which we got a number of brilliant urbanistic and rural cinema sketches - vivid, emotionally rich and impeccably shot - and the atmosphere of England of the late XIX - the first third of the XX century, perfectly recreated on the screen, where the smallest the details. Questions here arose only to make-up artists regarding the transfer of age-related changes in the appearance of a number of characters, since some of them for some reason after 20 years did not seem to have changed at all. The professionally performed work of the cameraman and artists is complemented by a very good soundtrack Jeffrey Bergon . In “Saga ...” of 2002 there really is a number of extremely good musical themes.
It would seem that all the prerequisites for the series to be successful are present. But!All this was brought to naught by the illogical scenario improvisations of Stefan Mallatrate and Ian McWarry , an unsuccessful casting in most positions and, as a result, an unsuccessful acting. Unfortunately, this primarily affected key characters.
So, the very appearance of Damian Lewis raises doubts about the presence of Soames Forsyth in the English aristocracy. When looking at it, associations arise more likely with marginal, if not with frankly criminal elements. A strange interpretation of this hero also played a negative role here. In an effort to show his character as a person emotional and keenly sensitive, the actor clearly overdid it, and as a result Soames Forsyth in some moments looks mentally inadequate, not to mention the scenes with his wild flashes of rage and unbridledness, which in no way agree with the character of this hero. In addition, in my opinion, D, Lewis went too far with facial expressions - she, if I may say so in a number of moments, is too active and absolutely out of place. The counterpart D. Lewis in the 1966 series Eric Porter was able to very subtly, almost to the point of balancing really strong feelings of Soames and restraining these same feelings in most cases, calmness and equanimity, in turn dictated by innate aristocracy. In this Foresight of the “sample” of 1966 you feel both the power of feeling and the strength of character, which obviously could not be conveyed to Soames in 2002.
The second - and even more obvious casting puncture - Gene McKee in the role of Irene.This is clearly not the type and character that John Galsworthy had in mind. Neither beauty (both external and internal), nor charm, nor strength of character, nor, again, the balance between the power of feelings and the factors that restrain them, we do not observe in the game Gina . As in the case of Soames, Irene’s behavior in a number of episodes raises doubts about her emotional balance. A vivid example here is, say, a scene in a club where Irene resorts in search of the unknown Phillip Bosini who has disappeared. And this is not the only such scene with the participation of the heroine. Looking at all this, willy-nilly remember the Nairi Dawn Porter , who played Irene in the 1966 series, her refined, verified, without the slightest flaw game, which even pulls to call aristocratic. Nairi Dawn Porter gives in this regard a hundred points ahead of Gene McKee, perhaps even more than Eric Porter - Damian Lewis .
It is greatly simplified, even, I would say, the image of Winifred is coarsened in the series. When looking at this heroine, parallels arise with the servant, not the aristocrat. Play Amanda Ruth like some maid, her role could definitely be called successful, but the trouble is that she plays just an aristocrat, which absolutely does not fit her spontaneity beating over the edge, sometimes passing almost into vulgarity. This is confirmed by a series of scenes of Winifred with Soames - in some of them, it seemed to me, my brother and sister had just a little before grabbing each other's hair. And again, it remains only to admire Margaret Tayzek , who played Winifred in the 1966 film.As in the case of the two above-mentioned characters, everything is impeccably and stylish.
I was also sharply opposed by the image of June Forsyth performed by Gillian Kearney . Yes, of course, June is one of the liveliest Forsytes, but not as much! June’s liveliness turned into frank fussiness here, and it is shown in the series as a bit too windy and superficial, not like the June Barry from the 1966 series, which played much brighter and more convincing.
However, it is worth saying a few words about successful acting in the 2002 series, which, alas, can be counted on the fingers, and with one hand.
In my opinion, two roles can be called absolutely successful: Phillip Bosini performed by Yoan Griffith and Annette Forsythe played by Beatriz Batarda .
With some corrections and gimmicks, more or less successful can also be attributed, I think, to Fleur by Emma Griffis Malin and the "young" Jolion Forsythe played by Rupert Graves .
Besides, I probably would have accepted such a Michael Mont ( Oliver Milburn ), if it weren’t for the sparkling and inimitable Nicholas Pennell in the earlier “Saga ...”.
In the “minus” “Foresight” of 2002 went, as I said at the beginning, and almost all the plot “finds” of the scriptwriters, almost always openly contrary to the meaning and logic of the source. In “The Saga ....” there was more respect for him in the year 1966, and those plot changes that were present were, firstly, minimal, and secondly, completely and completely fit into the logic of the story.
An unpleasant impression was also made by too many, as for me, the bed scenes and the emphasis on them.The presence of these scenes and even in such numbers, in my opinion, is absolutely unjustified.
As a result, the negative in the 2002 Forsyte Saga series outweighed the positive, so I can’t put more than four points for technical performance and some good acting work in this Saga ...
4 out of 10
The Forsyte Saga, 2002
The only series that I watch crying in three streams (and after all, I'm not a goddamn sentimental person).
It all started a long time ago, with the book, namely, its second part - The White Monkey, 1924. Since then I have fallen in love unaccountably: with Victorian England, the British manner of communication, with a unique sense of humor, cylinders and boutonnieres Green Park and St. James Park, Covent Garden and Serpentine to the entire Forsyth family at once. It felt like all of this is absolutely my genetics.
ITV-based adaptation, which, especially the first part is not very close to the canonical text and the classic version of the 60s, but it is it that makes me watch and listen in the original without stopping.
God, it’s hard to say how much you admire here, whether acting or camera work, or costumes, or music ... everything is so perfect in this world.
And Damien Lewis in the role of Soames (though sometimes, when he is very angry or very upset, he looks like a Carroll white rabbit in half with the Nazi :), and Gene McKee in the role of Irene (or Irene, as you like) - I could not stand this character in the book, such a statue, and here she put so much grace, and nobility, and internal conflict into this image, and this way of holding on and wearing dresses ... delight!).
And this story, like old Jolyon ( Corinne Redgrave , divine actor) endlessly loves her granddaughter June and how she suffers silently, seeing how she is tormented by Bossini (Welsh Yoan Graffad , as always, he is very beautiful, but somewhat monotonous), and how he (old Jolyon) brightens up Iirini’s life just before he leaves and so peacefully leaves for another world sitting in a chair in the garden in Robin Hill, and this pain of Soames, his love for Irene , even selfish, even possessive, but so deep and real, and yet he had been longing for love all his life, despite all the hyper-calculus and rationality, and in the end fate will give him Fleur, daughter, the only one of all he will love completely disinterestedly, but here he will not receive in return even half the same feeling ...
His Soames is not very similar to the book, neither in appearance nor in behavior, but then watch how he wears a coat and top hat, and then, in the second part, when he is already over 60 (despite the fact that he was 30 years old then), and how it changes internally - it's fantastic, I'm afraid that Lewis will not play anywhere else.
But the series and the book are by no means identical with each other, they rather complement and “finish” each other using new colors, which are not in the book, are in the series and vice versa.
It will not be an exaggeration if I say that this is a fantastic film adaptation, with such an amazing selection of the acting forces of England, with such a level of skill in all respects and such an outstanding degree of sincerity, subtlety, humor and hidden pain before everything in this world is fragile and it’s not forever that life and death are always near, that love does not always give birth to love, that money, real estate and collecting the best paintings are by no means save from life-long suffering and heartache.But my God, how much beauty and grace in all this!
For some reason, it seems to me that if parents and children want to understand each other, and if they want children to understand something about life, about family relationships you just need to plant them in front of the screen and silently see all this beauty next to them, don’t restraining emotions (I think that they will certainly be). It turns out at Galsworthy to call catharsis, it is not for nothing that he is a Nobel laureate!
This is not Jane Austen, this is a very rational, male novel, and a film adaptation, with all the vicissitudes, as in life. And in my opinion there is everything there to understand yourself.
Summing up, I want to once again declare publicly that, in my opinion, this is one of those rare adaptations of the novel (but not at all an interlinear, by no means), which makes me cry from beauty and perfection and from the fact that everything in life is , without sentiment, without slobbery romance.
PS. But the main thing here is still not love-carrot and not even “old money”, but the relationship of three generations of the same family, described (and filmed) with such documentary and so sincerely as probably nowhere else.
I started watching this series, because I read the book at the university. At first, Soames and Irene alerted me. I did not imagine them at all. But Soames gradually towards the end of the film, where he plays an elderly English gentleman, became more vivid and expressive. Spectators sincerely sympathize with him, the love that he carried through his whole life. Irene seemed to me a completely unfortunate option (Nyri Down Porter in the film adaptation of 1966 is better). The actress does not have the attractiveness and brightness that the author so carefully wrote. The image turned out faded, it is not clear how everyone fell in love with such a woman and went about her desires.
The representatives of the older generation are good in this film: old Jolyon, James, aunts. A real English family! June is not bad, interesting and unusual image. Annette, Fleur, John are remembered.
Winifred turned out to be completely unlike an aristocrat, she is too rustic. But her husband Darty turned out to be a very funny and bright character.
Bosini in this film adaptation is beyond praise, it turned out a bright, romantic and lively image, and the actor is quite attractive.
The very atmosphere of Victorian England is recreated very well. She helps the viewer feel that time, plunge into it.
10 out of 10
For a long time I wanted to see this adaptation of the great Saga, but it didn’t work out from the first minutes, all the viewing pleasure was spoiled by Gene McKee, I was completely at a loss - why did she play Irene? On her face for the entire film, I counted two whole emotions, the range of her feelings is so meager and small that it is not always clear what she is trying to portray. Forever the same, dry, fresh and uninteresting ... was that really Iirini? Of course not, warm, sensual, tender, the men so wanted to be near her, to bask in the heat that she radiates - but here Iirini is an ice, not able to express anything. Looking at her, it is not clear why everyone admired her, why June could not hate her, why the old man bequeathed her money, and finally - why Soames so desired her.
On the contrary - Damian Lewis, such a talented, textured actor, he portrayed Soames, who is sorry, sorry for his love, for his desperate step, he wanted Irene to look at him at least once without disgust, he dreamed of love. For me, a very significant scene with a red dress, is it possible after that to say that he is an insensitive grocer? His Soames is so good that I involuntarily took his side, I felt hurt and offended for him, perhaps Gene McKee played a role in this.
At the expense of the rest of the characters, June is depicted as a hysterical person who, as a rule, chases after Soames and hurries to express her contempt, and frankly, at the end of the film, this already begins to annoy ... neither the actress nor her character evokes sympathy. Was Winnifred so simple? I doubt it. I liked Monty, so I imagined him.
Output. With such opportunities it was possible to make a really brilliant film, but unfortunately the disappointment from the one I watched is so strong that I want to quickly forget what I saw and hope that soon a new adaptation will be removed and the casting this time will be more successful!
It seems to me that this is the main and main message of the saga. Is it to blame Irene and Bosini that a spark slipped between them, from which a flame of hatred erupted between several generations? Even June, a deceived bride and girlfriend, spit on pride, protects lovers.
The actors are well-chosen. So what if they do not look like their book prototypes? But what a game!
Gina Mackey managed to 'revive' Irene, in the book she is like a ghost - no feelings, no emotions, no worries. And the actress is very beautiful, although her hair is not 'the color of fallen leaves' and the color of the eyes is completely different.
Joan Griffith's pirate architect is pretty damn good.
Soames, that book, that screen, does not cause sympathy. There is no charm in him that would interest at least some woman. Even Darty’s hanger has more charm.
Baby June is sorry, she would make an almost perfect wife and mother. And she gives all unspent love and kindness to the 'unfortunate. ”
It is a pity that the authors did not finish the plot and did not remove the sequel to 'Swan Song'.
9 out of 10