Vanity Fair

[JaneJeffer]

I'm finding Rebecca annoying. I haven't read the book so have no idea if she's meant to be.

I'm really enjoying this.

I love how they've bought a contemporary twist to it.

It's clearly deliberate - you can see it from the opening credits with the Merry-go-Round. And love having Michael Palin as the narrator (Thackeray) - clever casting as he's known as a documentary maker.

Lots of people on this thread saying it's not authentic enough for them - but I think that's the point of this production. It's a classic novel given a fresh new interpretation, as often happens with Shakespeare's plays too.

It would be dull if it were just another formulaic costume drama.

They've really successfully conveyed Thackeray's wit - lots of laugh out loud moments. Loved Frances de la Tour's death throes!

grum - funny that. Read those exact comments on my MSN opening page today.....

I was confused as I thought sir Pitts other son was also called Pit and his wife really nice!!! Yet in this adaptation she is a bitch

Yes blackberry, in the book Sir Pitt's oldest son is Pitt who marries Lady Jane Sheepshanks. Bute is Sir Pitt's brother, and his wife Mrs Bute Crawley is the absolute horror who terrorises Mathilda Crawley during her episode of ill-health following the Rawdon-has-married-Becky reveal trauma.

I'll be interested to see how they untangle this mess they have created in the next few chapters, for while it’s not such a huge problem conflating Pitt with Bute, Mrs Bute into Jane simply will not fit. Jane's changing opinions of Becky are quite important to the plot.

Agree about the death throes!

I thought the battles fell strangely flat. Aside from the flinching at the horse shooting, which was realistic (poor war horses ) they seemed to lack menace or peril or dirt. Was wondering if the ITV costume dept was hoping to keep the uniforms nice for their next adaptation!

The bit that made no sense to me was Becky suddenly appearing with a child, though, with no prior warning. Having read the book I knew it was in the cards but not even to show a curved stomach or whatever was bizarre.

'It's a classic novel given a fresh new interpretation, as often happens with Shakespeare's plays too.'

I like the new interpretation of Becky's character. Doesn't take herself too seriously, and is devious in a tongue in cheek way. Great acting from her. I do actually think she is striving for what IS worth having. A bit of money and a nice lifestyle.

What's MSN?

suddenly appearing with a child

Agree that was a very strange moment & caused a lot of confusion initially.

Given than I'm having to constantly explain things to my DH, this story isn't working. Too many things are skipped, so it doesn't make sense anymore. Look at all the unanswered questions on this thread alone.

The writers and the producers should see things like this and realise they cut too deep in place and padded too much with unnecessary images of war and floundering horses.

For a moment when Becky appeared clutching a baby, I thought it was Amelia's and she was helping her! Then that sudden leap to baby George being a small boy in the park. Have to say, it's very enjoyable though. One thing that puzzles me a bit is why Jos Sedley appears to have lots of money and a wealthy lifestyle, whilst the rest of his family seem to be so poor.

Clawdy Jos is a tax collector in India. He sends his family a modest amount of money but his father is too proud to ask for more/tell him the true extent of their financial misfortune. Jos is also too dense and self-absorbed to realise the rest of his family have no income.

SilverHairedCat I concur absolutely

Stella thank you, that makes sense now.

Yes, passage of time being poorly dealt with. Should have had Michael Palin popping up with brief explanation.

IIRC in the book, Thackery talks about how Becky's father was an abusive alcoholic who kept an open house and Becky had to fetch booze and tobacco and run errands for his mates (for a small price), dance for them etc and make herself agreeable (obviously given the decency laws aound publishing at the time Thackery couldn't go further). She hada really rotten childhood and may well have ben sexually as well as physically abused. I wish the TV adaptations would make this clearer as it would give viewers a lot more sympathy for her character and why she in turn can't love young Rawdy. It also doesn't show just how tired and iritable she became hosting her own open house (life repesting itself)with Rawdon (cheating) at cards and so was desperate for some serious money (from Steen)

I thought Anthony Head made a good fist of his role, as did Rawdon. Still think the Becky actress lacks the acting chops for the role. Her face is curiously immobile. Agree with others above about how much has been missed out. It looks nice but it lacks heart.

Anthony Head was better as Lord Steyne than I expected, but what was all that bollocks about Lady Steyne (Sally Phillips slumming it) being Becky’s wise friend and mentor?

Also, Rawdon JUST ISN’T RIGHT. He is supposed to be more of a buffoon. Nathaniel Parker did it much better in the BBC version.

I'm enjoying this. Can someone explain to me who Lord Steyne is and how he's connected? It seemed when he turned up a couple of weeks ago Rawdon and Becky were expecting him but I don't remember him being mentioned before that.

It seems strange to me that this adaption should focus so much on battles that Thackeray merely glosses over, yet ignore so much of the plot concerning Becky and her relationships with the men around her.

Thackeray spends a lot of time setting up the 'I'm innocent' scene. Up until that point we don't know the exact nature of her relationship with Lord Steyne even though it's hinted it but never shown. (BBC's version most definitely hints that Becky is made to service Lord Steyne orally on his discovery she's not paid off and dismissed Briggs despite giving her £1200 to do so), but we never see anything concrete happen between them.
Lord Steyne kissing Becky on presenting her with her diamonds in ITV's version rather make a mockery of her claiming to be innocent when Rawdon discovers them together.

The biggest flaw to my mind is this adaptation just hasn't shown us how Becky has captivated such men as Lord Steyne and the King, and risen to the top of London society. At best what's been shown is flimsy.

The amalgamation of Sir Pitt's cousin Bute with Rawdon's brother hasn't worked either as we don't get to see how Becky has charmed him by making him believe he's got a great political future.

Agree about the comments on Rawdon who at best is a bit of a simple buffoon at heart who excels at cards. Nathanial Parker played him very well.

I think the characters have done their best with what they've been given. None of the characters are supposed to be likeable, particularly Becky. But we want them to succeed. However, this Becky just doesn't make me root for her in the same way that Thackeray's Becky does, or even Natasha Little's.

But this adaption has been poorly research and put together. I wonder if the writers only read half the book?

Criticisms are fair and valid but I am still enjoying it and I like the actress who plays Becky. I don’t think her face is immobile at all.

What a massive disappointment that whole last episode was. Complete understatement of all the issues. Just ugh.

Yes, Rawdon far too sympathetic a character, however its still something to watch on sunday evening.

Dd1 still loving it. I was sullen faced after this week’s episode. What no Becky playing Clytemnestra in the charades scene?! Booo.

At least we got Rawden throwing the necklace at Lord Steyne and cutting his head, plus a bit of the magnificent Glorvina terrorising poor Dobbin with her exuberant dancing.

Totally agree Stella re the “I am innocent!” scene. Ambiguous in the book (innocent of what exactly Becky ) and all laid out on a plate in this series.

Is absolutely anyone bar me still watching this?

I like it enough to keep watching but god it's flawed, I also don't understand how it's ending tonight with half the story untold

Yes - ewwww, they've bowlderised the ending! It's saccharine when it should be sweet 'n' sour.

Little George is a nascent alcoholic thanks to being spoilt rotten, and rude with it, esp to Dobbin to whom he owes his everything.

Amelia remains obsessed with the dead body of a cad and cries a lot. Poor Dobbin realises she'll always be nowt but a teenage lightweight who will cling 'to him like ivy' in the manner of a 'parasite'.

Mr Sedley gets pompous again at the very sniff of a pound note.

Waiting to see what happens to Jos...