Great Expectations BBC One 9pm Sunday

[CrossPurposes]

Yet another version begins tonight: https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/articles/2023/great-expectations-steven-knight

They're calling it Woke Expectations on R4! Perfect description.

Estella wasn't black in the book though was she, the example of white girl with cut glass vowels would have been the correct casting in accordance with the book.

Yes I'm sure he does. He is involved towards the end and why Pip assumes that it is Miss H who has set up his career and continued to be his benefactor. Is Mr Pumblechook not requested to send a boy by him? I thought he was quite sinister in the book.

I think the Estella actress is fine and the guy playing Jaggers is very good. Their ethnicity mkes not imact on my enjoyment of the adaption.

However the colour blnd casting is a bit too timid which is why i think it seems jarring to some, no reference is made to the fact Jaggers and Estella aren't white (which definitely would have happened in Dicken's time) so we are meant to assume they are not "seen" as black but there are very few non white actors so it doesn't quite ring true as a colour blind production. Armando Iannucci made a huge success of a colour blind Dickens adaption with his brilliant film version of David Copperfield and this adaption contrasts a bit unfavourably with that.

Do you think that would really have happened in Dickens time? Wealthy black solicitor? Black girl adopted by wealthy white aristo? I'm not sure... They're both great actors, just not sure it would have happened if you want historical accuracy.

There have been black people in Britain since Roman times. History is much less white than we were brought up to believe. But the whole point about colour blind casting is that the focus is on the acting, not the colour of the actor. And despite the anxieties of Alison Pearson and the telegraph, posh white girls - and boys - have far more chances to succeed in the arts than anyone without family money to support them or family connections to help them get on. So perhaps we can let black actors have a wider range of opportunities than in the past without Coastalvenues accusing the producers of tokenism?

@Coastalvenues well no of course not - but it is a 21st century adaption of a made up book. My point is there are two main ways on incorporating actors of colour in to "historical" adaption. You either go "colour blind" and no mention the colour or ethnic backgorund of the actor or you do it in a more "historic " way and see if you can integrate characters who could have plausibly been people of colour in that time. The series Harlots did that well with a pimp and musician and a black prostitute who had a back story of being brought over to the UK as the ex slave and then bride of a plantation foreman.

My point was it wasn't clear what apprach this adpation was taking so it felt a little off - it doesn't have the cofidence in its colour blind casting in the way the recent David Copperfield film did but equally the ethnicity of Estella and Jaggers are not commented upon by the characters and we know in the novel they were white, so it is clear the wiriters of the show have not taken the latter approach.

People of colour have been playing historical characters in the theatre for years and no one seems to get too upset. I saw an adaption of Anthony and Cleopatra in the late 1990s when I was studying it for GSCE. Anthony was played by a black actor. At no point did we actually think the real Marc Anthony was a man from sub saharan Africa.

Geenrally as @BishyBarnyBee says colour blind casting is a good development as it allows more opptunities for actors, black and asian actors in the UK have in the past struggled as so many of the "prestige" films and TV adaptions were costume or historic dramas so there was a lack of high profile parts for them. Hence why very accomplished actors like Idris Elba, David Harewood, Marianne Jean Baptise etc.. sought careers in the US.

I know this adaptation is getting a lot of stick in the press for not being true to the book. But I'm really liking this version and some of the changes so far. I like that they've made Pip, Estella and Biddy less passive and naive, and made them actual active participants in their own lives and the story's narrative. They all have their own hopes, dreams and ambitions from the outset, rather just being the unwitting pawns of others. The female characters have a lot more power and influence too.

I like that they've made Pip, Estella and Biddy less passive and naive, and made them actual active participants in their own lives and the story's narrative

But it was an essential part of the plot that Pip and Estella were passive and naive. They were passive because they were children and had very little control over their lives, and the way they were used and manipulated by other people had a lasting impact on their characters and their lives. Take that away and you have an entirely different story. It may be a good story, but it's no longer Dickens' story.

Agree @CeliaNorth . They were very much victims of their circumstances in the book. Pip and Biddy were poor and their destiny was to get by not aspire to greater things. Pip was a reluctant participant in the game of the wealthy but as a poor child had no control of his destiny. Even Estella had she not been adopted by Miss Havisham would have struggled to get beyond the workhouse.

I'm out after tonight's travesty. Knight interfered so much with the flow of Dicken"s narrative and themes that he might as well have written his own story.
I cannot think why.the prostitute business or the BDSM scenes were inserted into the story except that Knight was updating to appeal to 21st century tastes. He seems to think he must portray a pervasive sleaziness to achieve that.
The casting is poor. Pip delivers his lines in a wooden manner while Estelle does her best to reciprocate. She is a surly mean looking Estelle and I can see no reason to make her black.

I generally like colour blind casting and whole heartedly blame the director rather than the actress but I don't like the artistic direction they've gone in in combination with the casting. Having Estella as slovenly and unkept (wearing expensive but dirty clothes, no servants to clean her clothes or ladies maid to do her hair etc) combined with the poor manners reads as prostitute not young lady. In combination with the other new additions and changes to the plot and the explicit references to the slave trade and prostitution I'd say it's giving a very distorted view of what was supposed to be going on in the story.

I generally like colour blind casting

'This actress (who happens to be black) really aced the audition for the role of Estella, she was by far the best we saw, we must have her' is one thing. 'We must cast a black actress as Estella' is another thing entirely.

Having Estella as slovenly and unkept (wearing expensive but dirty clothes, no servants to clean her clothes or ladies maid to do her hair etc) combined with the poor manners reads as prostitute not young lady.

And why would Pip (who would have seen plenty of prostitutes), think himself common and coarse in comparison?

Exactly. Estella is from a different world from Pip - a rich world. She is beautiful and haughty, and she looks down on him as a “common labouring boy”. He loves her and that’s why he wants to become a gentleman.

Estella looked like she'd stepped out of a bordello. She's meant to be classy, unattainable and icily alluring. I don't see that.

Even as a fan of the book, I love the fact that they've made changes. There are so many versions out there I don't see any problem in adapting and changing things. It must be much more satisfying for the artists involved in producing this tv version. Humanising Mrs Joe for example, is very interesting. Yes it's a change with a wider implications than just her character but adds another dimension to it all. Having read the book many times and watched several adaptations over the years, this is keeping me engaged and giving me something new to think about.
In contrast to many, I almost can't see the point of adapting a novel for tv and NOT making changes. If you want the novel, read the novel. That is especially true when it's already been done so many times.

^^
Exactly this.
I was going to say the same, but it would be an almost word for word repeat!

Why not just make something original then?

JaneJeffer because the original is inspiring; because it introduces a new generation to a classic; because there is so much that can be done with it.
I love seeing new ideas explored in texts I'm familiar with. This one is making me see things I'd never really thought about before.
It's also true that there is no neutral adaptation, every one is interpreting in some way. I went on a course once where we had to adapt the opening of Jane Eyre as if for tv. It was great fun, eye-opening and everyone became passionate about their version.

This one is making me see things I'd never really thought about before.

Yeah Mr Pumblechook with his arse out being whipped by Mrs Joe, really deep - adds such a lot to the story.

Adaptations are indeed always your own artistic vision and include a wide range of decisions. It's not that I don't like it because it isn't perfectly faithful. They just happen to have made choices that don't work for me.

But they'll get the wrong idea from this new adaptation. They'll go off and read it and probably give up. No others have strayed so far and made so many changes.

I did this for my degree, so I'm very much a purist where it's concerned which is probably why I can't watch it anymore.

Obviously whether someone likes this particular production is subjective. There are things I do like about it so far but I certainly don't love it.

It's the principle of making changes that I argue strongly in favour of. Notanothertnewname I don't think turning to the novel after seeing this production would automatically mean someone wouldn't like the novel.
Maybe I'm unimaginative but I just don't get it. It don't understand at all why people think that 150 years and many adaptations later, a new adaptation has to be "pure". I've studied literature and it's never made me feel that work I admire has to be as close to the original as possible when other creative people use it in their own work.
The writers, directors, costume designers, musicians etc involved are artists themselves and I want to see what they have to say about Great Expectations.

I would not say an adaptation has to be “pure”, as in rigidly sticking to the book. In fact, no adaptation I have seen has done this.
But if it veers too far from the themes of the book, and what the book was actually trying to say, and if it in fact is trying to say something entirely different (as here), then it is not an adaptation IMO, it is more “inspired by”. Which is fine, but I think it’s an important distinction.

I've just caught up with the second episode. My god it's awful!! Almost hilariously so. Like a sixth form English class were told 'Great Expectations, but make it edgy'. I lol'd at the spanking scene as it was so ridiculous and yet totally predictable. Dear me.