Lot No. 249
Just watched Mark Gatiss' latest Ghost Story For Christmas for the BBC as on Christmas Eve the time passed midnight and changed to Christmas morning.
When I'd first heard the choice of story announced, I was somewhat annoyed. I wish, when presenting a “Ghost Story for Christmas,” that they’d pick something that was actually read aloud (as with M. R. James) or published at Christmas, or set during Christmas, if not both (as with Dickens). Lot No. 249 was published in September 1892 and makes no mention of Advent, Christmas, or Christmastide. One can call it a "ghost story" in the broad sense, and yes they’re presenting it for Christmas *now*, but historically it was not a Christmas ghost story in any way.
Gatiss had said, "It’s a serious delight for me to delve once again into the brilliant work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, this time for the Christmas ghost story. Lot No.249 is personal favourite and is the grand-daddy (or should that be Mummy?) of a particular kind of end of Empire chiller: a ripping yarn packed with ghastly scares and who-knows-what lurking in the Victorian closet …”. With that last, he was definitely telegraphing something- broadcasting, really.
Marni Cerise in "The Queer-Coding of BBC’s 'Lot No. 249'" on the site telly visions wrote of it having "a heavy reliance on a style of old-school queer coding" and Cerise wrote of signifiers, of the suggestive, of implication. It's all laid on so very thick in the program, however, that one might as well call it explicitly queer.
Cerise called the heavy reliance on the coding the "one misstep" of the program. I'm not sure I agree. There's the aforementioned issue of it not being a Christmas ghost story, and how that may further confuse matters for people trying to understand what a Christmas ghost story is.
The idea of queering the story I don't find inherently objectionable, but how it overdid that to such a degree definitely was. Unfaithfulness to the story in other ways also bothered me. The ending was changed, not for the better.
Worst of all, it simply wasn't in the least bit scary. If it's not time for Gatiss to pass the baton entirely, perhaps he should step back from the writing at least.
When I'd first heard the choice of story announced, I was somewhat annoyed. I wish, when presenting a “Ghost Story for Christmas,” that they’d pick something that was actually read aloud (as with M. R. James) or published at Christmas, or set during Christmas, if not both (as with Dickens). Lot No. 249 was published in September 1892 and makes no mention of Advent, Christmas, or Christmastide. One can call it a "ghost story" in the broad sense, and yes they’re presenting it for Christmas *now*, but historically it was not a Christmas ghost story in any way.
Gatiss had said, "It’s a serious delight for me to delve once again into the brilliant work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, this time for the Christmas ghost story. Lot No.249 is personal favourite and is the grand-daddy (or should that be Mummy?) of a particular kind of end of Empire chiller: a ripping yarn packed with ghastly scares and who-knows-what lurking in the Victorian closet …”. With that last, he was definitely telegraphing something- broadcasting, really.
Marni Cerise in "The Queer-Coding of BBC’s 'Lot No. 249'" on the site telly visions wrote of it having "a heavy reliance on a style of old-school queer coding" and Cerise wrote of signifiers, of the suggestive, of implication. It's all laid on so very thick in the program, however, that one might as well call it explicitly queer.
Cerise called the heavy reliance on the coding the "one misstep" of the program. I'm not sure I agree. There's the aforementioned issue of it not being a Christmas ghost story, and how that may further confuse matters for people trying to understand what a Christmas ghost story is.
The idea of queering the story I don't find inherently objectionable, but how it overdid that to such a degree definitely was. Unfaithfulness to the story in other ways also bothered me. The ending was changed, not for the better.
Worst of all, it simply wasn't in the least bit scary. If it's not time for Gatiss to pass the baton entirely, perhaps he should step back from the writing at least.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Emily
(new)
Dec 30, 2023 04:52AM
Not being familiar with the original, I thoroughly enjoyed watching it. The queering element did not seem to be laid on thick, especially when one considers the modern age and some of Gatiss' novels. Honestly, it was set in an Oxford college at the end of the 19th century, and the story was written only 3 years before Oscar Wilde's trial (Wilde himself was an Oxford man). It added to the air. If you want to see a recent literary adaptation that really diverges from the source, try "A Haunting in Venice." While very enjoyable, I fail to see how it is an adaptation of Christie's Halloween Party.
reply
|
flag
Thanks for the comment!I enjoyed "A Haunting in Venice," but it's been forever since I'd read the original story, so maybe that helped in addition to the quality of the cast, setting, cinematography, mustache....
With cover songs I prefer them to diverge greatly from the original because otherwise why not just listen to the original? But with adaptation from text to screen (or vice versa) of something that hasn't been adapted previously I suppose I largely prefer faithfulness, because otherwise why not just write a completely new movie? When it comes to remakes, it's more like covers: I'd like to see a really new take on it, because otherwise I'd rather rewatch the original.
Perhaps I'll check out Gatiss' novels sometime. I'd liked his other work for A Ghost Story for Christmas, including the one he wrote that was not an adaptation, "The Dead Room."
One might also note: they've been doing A Ghost Story for Christmas for more than fifty years, and in all that time they've never adapted any stories by women, never had a female screenwriter, never had a female director. True also of related works not under that title, ones that adapted James or were broadcast during Christmastide, with there being one exception not regarding writing but directing only: Sandy Elizabeth James having directed Henry James' The Turn of the Screw in 2009. That's certainly not in keeping with Victorian tradition, where women wrote quite a lot of them and edited a number of the prominent publications known for them as well. By this time Gatiss and the BBC ought to be a least a little ashamed about that.
Yet when it comes to other adaptions Gatiss wants to do, identified when he was interviewed about Lot 249: "some E.F. Benson"; "Lots more James and Doyle"; The Sweeper’ by A.M. Burrage, ‘God Grante That She Lye Stille’ by Cynthia Asquith. One woman as an afterthought, otherwise four men - and multiple stories by three of those men.
That Asquith one - it's not even a Christmas ghost story, and it was already adapted for Boris Karloff's Thriller in 1961. (Lot 249 had previously been adapted for the BBC in 1967, but that does not survive.) By all means, adapt ghost stories that were not set at or published at Christmas - but please do that at some other time of the year! A Ghost Story for Christmas really ought to be a proper Christmas ghost story.
I'll give it another shot sometime and see if maybe in another context I like it any more.I do really like The Eternal: Kiss of the Mummy (1998), more than most viewers. It's arguably more of a witch movie, though. I also quite like much about Ossorio's Blind Dead movies, but those aren't typical mummies either.
Christmas Ghost Stories and Horror
I was fortunate enough to edit Valancourt Books' 4th & 5th volumes of Victorian Christmas Ghost Stories. Things found while compiling are shared here. (Including some Thanksgiving Ghost items.)
...more
- Christopher Philippo's profile
- 8 followers
