Jane Austen discussion

This is for discussion of the 2004 BBC version of Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South. We have been hosting a discussion of the novel in a separate folder and thought we'd now love to discuss the film. Please join in--

I am 3/4 of the way through and will finish watching the last installment tonight. It is certainly an interesting adaptation...

I love this movie. It's what got me started reading Elizabeth Gaskell's books. I'd never heard of her before that and now she's one of my favorite authors. But there's one thing about the movie that I hate--I hate it when Mr. Thornton physically attacks a worker in the factory. Not only does this not happen in the book, but it's completely contrary to Mr. Thornton's character. He doesn't have an uncontrolled temper. I think I can guess what the screenwriter's reasoning was--that it makes an obvious reason for Margaret's antipathy--but I don't like it. I also think Margaret going to London for the Exhibition when her mother is so ill is silly.

Alicia wrote: "But there's one thing about the movie that I hate--I hate it when Mr. Thornton physically attacks a worker in the factory. Not only does this not happen in the book, but it's completely contrary to Mr. Thornton's character. He doesn't have an uncontrolled temper. I think I can guess what the screenwriter's reasoning was--that it makes an obvious reason for Margaret's antipathy--but I don't like it."

Yes, yes, yes. This makes me crazy. Not only is it unnecessary, not in the original text, and not in Thornton's character to do this, but also I don't believe that it would be in Margaret's character to love and admire a man who would do this. In addition to this incident, I think the Thornton was portrayed as much more hostile and ill-humoured than Gaskell wrote him.

And the whole Great Exhibition excursion is strange and unnecessary.

Alicia wrote: "I love this movie. It's what got me started reading Elizabeth Gaskell's books. I'd never heard of her before that and now she's one of my favorite authors. But there's one thing about the movie ..."

It is an enjoyable movie because they have done some very nice things with it, but really added some disagreeable things also. You ladies have mentioned some of them. And these unusual additions really change the characters too. John becomes physically violent, Henry becomes confrontational (that made-up Exhibition scene), Bessie Higgins becomes a smart-mouth girl, and Bell becomes a younger jealous man with his sights on Margaret.

I just can't imagine the movie-maker's thinking --"ok, now we'll just have John punch that guy out." What novel was this again? ha ha To me it is needless drama. John later explains the danger of fire in a cotton mill, which was a fact. And the health risk from the lung disease is also brought up -- and I did like in the proposal scene that John says something about "sending my workers to an early grave." These really are what the story is about but I would hope that we are intelligent enough to grasp these things without them being brought into the script so awkwardly.

It just seemed they felt the need for a real re-write. The ending is another example. The film ending is beautiful -- you have to admire it. Perfectly filmed and everything subtle. But the novel's ending scene is also beautiful. I have mentioned in the thread of the book discussion how I loved the setup of this last scene. It was just perfect. And basically they erased that completely and switched to the train station.

Yes, after listening to Greg Wise's reading of the first proposal scene, I feel even more strongly that the scene as written in the book is much more powerful emotionally than the script. Why change it to make it less powerful? It doesn't make any sense. But I love the scenes when Margaret says goodbye to John and when he watches her carriage drive away. So sad! There's a case where they did a good job adapting the story to the medium and showing the character's emotions. I also think the train station love scene is very beautiful and powerful--better in some ways than the way it is written in the book, because I'm uncomfortable with Margaret's coyness as it's written in the book. But it always embarrasses me in movies when they have the characters kiss in public in a period when this would not have been done. Alone in a room, or in a sheltered part of a garden, yes, but not in a train station!

Alicia wrote: "Yes, after listening to Greg Wise's reading of the first proposal scene, I feel even more strongly that the scene as written in the book is much more powerful emotionally than the script. Why chang..."

Where did you find Greg Wise reading North & South? I would love to hear him read. I 've looked on iTunes and Audible.com.

Here's the Greg Wise reading, Lani. He reads just a portion on a commercial site for this coffee company. You may enjoy it--

http://www.cartenoire.co.uk/cartenoir...

Alicia wrote: "Yes, after listening to Greg Wise's reading of the first proposal scene, I feel even more strongly that the scene as written in the book is much more powerful emotionally than the script. Why chang..."

Alicia, I liked the scene where John and Margaret parted as she left Milton too. That was a nice add for sure and a good scene for Richard Armitage.

That train station was public, but it did give a private feel to the scene somehow film-wise. But socially, it would be unrealistic for a lady and gentleman, wouldn't it? That is another way the original novel appeals to me more.

Do you have other favorite scenes, Alicia?

I like it when Margaret's in Helston, with her dress spread around her on the ground, and the camera is above.

I like it when she returns to Helston, to the parsonage, and she imagines that she sees her parents there.

I like the music, too.

I liked those scenes, too, Alicia. That reminds me -- what did you think of the scenes of the cotton mill when it showed the cotton lint floating in the air? I am puzzled by it, because it was made to look so beautiful, but actually the mill was such a hard dangerous unhealthy place for the workers.

To me they made it look fairy-like with filming it that way. Did I see that right or did I miss the point? It just seemed romanticized which would have been far from Gaskell's original aim.

Sarah said "What did you think of the scenes of the cotton mill when it showed the cotton lint floating in the air? I am puzzled by it, because it was made to look so beautiful, but actually the mill was such a hard dangerous unhealthy place for the workers.

To me they made it look fairy-like with filming it that way. Did I see that right or did I miss the point? It just seemed romanticized which would have been far from Gaskell's original aim."

There is a good side to the cotton mills--it provided a living for many people and produced a useful product. While Gaskell tried hard--and I think succeeded--in showing both sides of the story, her real sympathies were with the mill workers. (I've been reading a biography.)

You're absolutely right. The way the mill is filmed does romanticize it.

I'll just say I've read the book and love the movie. I actually prefer the movie ending to the book. Tho' I know it would not have been in line with social customs of the time to kiss in a train station it has so much more meaning to me. I think it has the ultimate romantic ending but only because you have to wade thru all the trials and tribulations of the time period as well as the people's lives. If you don't the end isn't as intriguing.

Hi Sue, I am questioning a lot about the film, but I do like it -- have already watched it three times and I only got it this summer(!) I think even with us critics (me!) -- we can prefer seeing some things that really are more modern than the time period would have called for.

For example, we know why they were kissing at the train platform -- they were in love and had struggled to this point that they could be together. Is there a better reason to kiss at a train station? ha ha

And poor Henry had to face the facts. After our discussion of the book, we know I have a sympathy for Henry (Henry of the book, not necessarily of the film).

And the scene was done really well, with simple dialog and so simple actions, she just walks to the other train. I liked that.

Oh, and welcome to the group too.

Alicia wrote: Sarah said "What did you think of the scenes of the cotton mill when it showed the cotton lint floating in the air? I am puzzled by it, because it was made to look so beautiful, but actually the mill was such a hard dangerous unhealthy place for the workers.

To me they made it look fairy-like with filming it that way. Did I see that right or did I miss the point? It just seemed romanticized which would have been far from Gaskell's original aim."

There is a good side to the cotton mills--it provided a living for many people and produced a useful product. While Gaskell tried hard--and I think succeeded--in showing both sides of the story, her real sympathies were with the mill workers. (I've been reading a biography.)

You're absolutely right. The way the mill is filmed does romanticize it."

I just finished watching it (for the 5th time or so... guilty pleasure, when I actually should be doing stuff for school) and started writing a review for my blog.
I was also thinking about the cotton mills and how they fit in the whole style of the series.

To me it is not romaticizing them. In the first part (or at the beginning of the second, I'm not quite sure) Margaret writes to Edith something about that she saw "hell" in Milton and it being white, while we see the fluff in the mills. So I really take those mill picutres in that context.
And I also agree about the mills having two sides, one is the new way of the world, the money and the freedom, the equalization that the mills bring, and the other is of course the price that must be paid, death and impaired health by the fluff here.
And while we see a beautiful and dreamy looking picture of the white fluff virtually dancing (it is like a vision of the mill owner's dreams) we know at the same time that it is deadly, because this particular point is stressed in the character of Bessy.

I also love the film ending. It fits perfectly with the whole series. The train in the series appears again and again and to me becomes something like an independent character (the train is the symbol of progress and industrialization that actually reaches to the South) connecting North and South and thus abstractly connecting Margaret and Mr. Thornton.
So, while the book ending does naturally fell more genuine, the film ending is true to the series, I think.

I also like the ending at the train station because it reflects on the individual developments our heroes had to go through as they are portrayed in the series. The train station essentially is a place that is nowhere. And this is the place that they finally recognize each other and find themselves, when before both were determined by where they came from (North and South) and by now they have outgrown those boundaries and cannot be identified by them anymore.

Oh my, I really have to finish my review... ;-)

thanks sarah for the welcome.

Freddy, you really gave us some things to think about with this movie. Especially the cotton mills scenes I was confused about. I see what you mean -- maybe showing the two sides of the picture. The mills as a answer to poverty and a step in the progress of industrialization. And I do like that both novel and film don't portray Thornton as uncaring -- he isn't heartless in the issues of the mill-worker classes. (In much of the dialog that is -- I still don't agree with those oddly violent physical scenes for him.) Especially in the novel, we see a real clarification of his position, his financial worries, the struggle to keep up with modern machinery, etc.

So I like that you and Alicia brought out that the mills were the answer to problems. Same here in the area I grew up in. It was the main industry for many years, but I know in the early days they just couldn't make it safe enough for the workers -- there probably wasn't the technology to do it, even if that had been a main concern.

I also like what you are saying about the train station. Maybe also as Margaret and John leave together on the train it really says they are moving together somewhere and will carve out a different future rather than something static. These symbols really add a lot to the story and especially the film, don't they?

I wonder how many MORE times we'll watch it Freddy? ha ha Speaking for myself, I can't even guess.

Freddy, I love your thoughts about the trains.

I own the movie and have also watched it many times. Especially the romantic scenes.

Joy wrote: "Alicia wrote: "But there's one thing about the movie that I hate--I hate it when Mr. Thornton physically attacks a worker in the factory. Not only does this not happen in the book, but it's complet..."

I agree with you both, Joy and Alicia, on this. Thornton is portrayed as rather too grim and somewhat cruel. Another aspect of the film that was different from the book that I did not like is the introduction of Miss Latimer as a character. I guess the idea was to introduce jealousy to help Margaret become better aware of her feelings, but it really seemed very contrived to me. The character was not developed either and there was no indication of how Mr. Thornton felt toward her.

In short, I feel that the book is perfect as it is, and most aspects of the film that were extraneous to the book were not good or necessary additions and could have been avoided (including the exhibition bit).

Badlydone wrote: "I agree with you both, Joy and Alicia, on this. Thornton is portrayed as rather too grim and somewhat cruel. Another aspect of the film that was different from the book that I did not like is the introduction of Miss Latimer as a character. I guess the idea was to introduce jealousy to help Margaret become better aware of her feelings, but it really seemed very contrived to me. The character was not developed either and there was no indication of how Mr. Thornton felt toward her.

In short, I feel that the book is perfect as it is, and most aspects of the film that were extraneous to the book were not good or necessary additions and could have been avoided (including the exhibition bit). "

Yes! Miss Latimer is completely unnecessary, but apparently the director/screenwriter though she was. For me, the changes are even more frustrating because the book was so well done that these obtrusive changes are almost insulting. As if the original text was not interesting enough or developed well enough so that this adaptation tries to 'fix' the problems. To me, this is not an adaptation, but an 'inspired by' mini-series.

I am actually quite disappointed that I don't love it like so many do. But I still do love the Cranford and Wives and Daughters adaptations, so I will just stick with those :)

Thornton is portrayed as rather too grim and somewhat cruel.

Maybe it's because I saw the movie first, but I like the way Richard Armitage portrays Mr.Thornton. I just hate that one violent scene that is inconsistent with his character.

...I still do love the Cranford and Wives and Daughters adaptations...

The adaptation of Wives and Daughters sticks much more closely to the book. I love it too.

Another good point, Joy -- Miss Latimer. Didn't like her. By bringing in a rival for John's affections, it did seem to go too far into the romance area and away from the real story. Like adding a blank character that is just there to look at -- isn't there a name for that? They were really taking the freedom of the filmmaker.

I am looking forward to seeing Wives now, Alicia. Yes, I think Armitage was good for the role, and maybe is the one consolation for a script some of us didn't altogether care for!

I haven't read the book (but I will, some day)but I loved the movie. Richard Armitage did a great job. I thought his character was believable, and I liked the story as well. Poor workers at that time, it could not have been easy.

I really feel that I have to get my hands on a copy of the book, so that I can compare the movie to the original..

I have the video of North and South and was turned off by Thornton's violence toward the worker for lighting up. That would have posed a health hazard, besides setting the place aflame. I don't know if I should continue viewing this video to see if it will get better at the end.

Robin you should continue to watch, you'll see it's worthwhile and the scene is not in the book and Thornton is not a man with a wild temper.

Honestly, Thornton has become a memorable character in my mind. He is a person who has achieved Pip's dream in 'Great Expectations.' and successfully continuing Captain Wentworth's beginning of the 'new gentleman' in Persuasion.

I am new to Elizabeth Gaskell's work. Only thing I knew of her was that she wrote the biographey of Charlotte Bronte. Reading North and South made me realise that there is still so much I have to read.

Since this thread is about the movie ( which I didn't notice earlier) watch it. There's nothing much to add than what everyone has pointed out earlier.

Oh... yes Mrs. Thornton is bit of a witch in the book but she has been made into some what a nicer lady in the movie. I don't know what's with that.

I do encourage you to watch more of the North & South film. I don't agree with all the changes made in the film as compared to the book, but it is certainly a creditable period movie that is worth seeing. It is not a violent film throughout and there are some very good performances of the actors. If you choose to set it aside for a while or permanently, I can understand too-- so many books and movies -- so little time! :)

I know I am being inundated with more things to watch, besides I have videos on hold for me now at the library, and it is going to be lots of viewing from now until I watch mostly all of them. Why has the movie taken a different route as noticed by other postings on this topical thread. I really don't care for John Thornton's mother either, she seems interested in the different classes, as evidence by Fanny always referring to the Hale girl as not accomplished, since she doesn't play the piano. I haven't seen Fanny play as yet, so maybe I will try to review with a new set of eyes. Thanks Sarah. Also thanks to Amalie also. I also need to read North and South, and as you say Sarah, so many books so little time. LOL

I started the first episode today, mainly as background noise while folding laundry, and it sucked me in. I ended up watching the whole thing in 1 sitting! The opening scene, and those following in the mill, were very cool, beautiful but you know that floating white fuzz is bad for the workers. After reading all the comments I'm intrigued to read the book to see the differences. Even not having read the book, I found the ending scenes, where they kiss at the train station, a little odd given the time period. But it wasn't horrible. As an added bonus, since I watched the movie first, I'm going to be envisioning the very handsome Richard Armitage as Mr. Thornton - Lucky Me! :)

I have a friend who always tell me to watch the movie before I read the book, because sometimes you end up really disappointed at the adaptation...this time was one of those times, first I read the book, recommended by someone, I loved the book...the movie was too changed, even Fanny's character! and Mrs Hale's! and then how they changed Mr Bell's character :o, I loved Mr. Bell in the book, he was so nice. And Frederick, he looked younger that Margaret (who I think looked too mature for 20 years of age).
The thing that really disappointed me was how the changed the final scene...I thought it was perfect in the book, so I said to myself it is impossible the change something so beautiful, and then they did...did not like this at all.

I loved the actor that played Mr. Thornton, very good performance; and Mrs Thornton exactly how I imagined her.

I watched the movie awhile back, and then have since read the novel. The book goes into much more details than the movie, I liked the ending of the movie though. It is well worth either reading the book first or the movie. Both are very insightful.

OMG!!! North & South has become my favorite movie ever. I read the book and listened to the audio version. I also have a huge crush on Richard Armitage. Richard really became John Thornton.

In the book I find John Thornton to be even more passionate about Margaret. For instance I loved the tender way he handled Margaret after she is knocked out during the riot scene. Once Mr. Thornton gets Margaret up back upstairs he says, My Margaret, my Margaret and declares his love for her without anyone else being around to hear it. I would have loved to see this in the movie too. I do love the ending in the movie much better. The Richard Armitage knows how to lay on kiss.

John Thornton was very disciplined but deep down he was very passionate when it came to Margaret. His soul to soul connection to Margaret was so deep and immediate that he could hardly speak when he first met her (I mean in the book). Then he leaves her to go over to the apartment to have the people change the wallpaper just for her.

In the book after Margaret rejects him he will not have his mother speaking ill of her, and he says that he will love Margaret even more. OMG...I can't decide if I want John Thornton or Captain Wentworth. :-)

Robin wrote: "I have the video of North and South and was turned off by Thornton's violence toward the worker for lighting up. That would have posed a health hazard, besides setting the place aflame. I don't k..."

I wish that the screenwriter did not put that violent scene in the movie. It certainly is not in the book. I don't think it was necessary.

I love Trudy Brasure's sequel to North & South called A Heart For Milton. I could not put it down and the ending brought tears to my eyes.

http://www.aheartformilton.com/

I plan on watching the move all the way through some-time because I started but hated Margret so I'll give it a second chance.

Anna wrote: "I plan on watching the move all the way through some-time because I started but hated Margret so I'll give it a second chance."

You hated Margaret? That is a strong statement. Are you saying that you didn't like how Margaret was portrayed in the movie? I loved Margaret in the movie and loved Daniela Denby-Ashe as Margaret. I don't think she played Margaret exactly as the book but I stilled enjoyed it. In the book although Margaret is outspoken she is not all tough all the time.

I absolutely adored the mini-series! "Look back, look back at me!" Yes, it's true, I'm in love with Richard Armitage. I just recently read the book and I liked it more than I expected to. I agree with the previous comment by Robin. I enjoyed the book, but thoroughly adored the ending of the mini-series.

I'm glad you loved It!! it's SO good!

Alexia wrote: "I absolutely adored the mini-series! "Look back, look back at me!" Yes, it's true, I'm in love with Richard Armitage. I just recently read the book and I liked it more than I expected to. I agree ..."

I am just starting the Novel but have seen the mini series!!!!! Richard Armitage 'swoon' sorry ill just get up off the floor! If you can believe it I was standing with my ear to the T.V the other night rewinding the DVD several times trying to work out what he said!!!! Thank you now I know :D

Alicia great point. didnt like that either. it is totally contrary to thortons character

Found the minin series on Netflix. Really fascinating. Fantastic character in a great love story, but also a really different look at the time, and the really dramatic changes happening.

Sarah

This North & South series was very popular here in the UK a few years ago, when it was first shown on TV.

I read the book after that - rather "Victorian" in style, but that was not too surprising, bearing in mind when it was published!

I personally preferred the ending in the TV series, as I found the ending in the book rather "wimpy" - weak (or is that a UK expression?

Richard Armitage has gone on to greater things since then.

I watched the DVD of N&S first,then in March of this year,I treated myself to the book!

What a treat I got! I absolute adore the wonderful way Gaskell has of expressing John's thoughts and feelings for Margaret.

We feel every stab of pain that he feels,knows how much in love he is with her,laments with him over the fact that he believes he is not and never will be good enough for her. Oh! The exquisite pain and torture that he suffers!

I love this book,and although the DVD is fantastic to watch,especially the train station scene and that wonderfully romantic kiss,the book is so much more!

I agree with most everyone else... the show is good but cannot compare with the book. Largely the biggest detriment to the show is the violence scene previously addressed.

Yes,Krysta,the violent scene is difficult to watch,but I think that Sandy Welch,the screenwriter needed a modern audience to understand the initial antipathy and prejudice Margaret felt towards John.

To simply try to portray the North (manufacturing ) and South (agricultural) divide on a screen or Margaret's derogatory attitude to 'shoppe' people would probably take too long,but showing the violent scene allowed us,the 20th and 21st century audience to somehow understand that he felt strongly and although not a violent man per se,he was very passionate and when his feelings and anger were roused,he felt moved to the take action.