I first noticed James Norton in the BBC drama series Happy Valley in which he plays Tommy Lee Royce; a cold, vindictive, psychotic, serial murderer.
Quite irrationally I believed he must in real life be a bit rough, like his character in HV. Just shows what a good actor he is. In real life he went to Ampleforth, got a First in Theology at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge (concentrating on Hinduism and Buddhism) and then went to RADA. All excellent preparation for playing Sidney Chambers, the crime-solving vicar in Grantchester. To digress slightly, the Grantchester books were written by James Runcie, the Archbishop’s boy.
It’s somewhat discombobulating, isn’t that a lovely word, to watch the BBC adaptation of War and Peace. So many old friends are there from the Trollope adaptations I have recently watched. Andrew Davies, natch, writes the script again and Martin Phipps composes the music. MP as it happens is a godson of Benjamin Britten but, perhaps fortunately, eschews his godfather’s style for something more suitable for the screen. It is interesting that, when the film is finished, he conducts the National Orchestra of Wales, synchronising the music to the screen using “clicks” played through headphones to the orchestra. This is more accurate than just conducting to fit the action – so they say.
W&P was filmed in Lithuania, Latvia and Russia, so I recognised a few locations in St Petersburg from my January 2019 visit (see posts passim) and the Latvian Radio Choir helps out on the soundtrack. It is a lavish production, very well acted but, oh the shame of it, partly financed by Harvey Weinstein. It wouldn’t have mattered if Jeffery Epstein had been casting director; all the young actresses are much too old for him. Tolstoy’s novel is one of the Great Russian Novels and like so many great books, think Moby Dick, it is well known but not well read. Andrew Davies does a good job writing the screenplay. As one of the actors says: “It’s boys chasing girls, chasing boys” – a lavish aristocratic soap opera with battles, balls and a duel. I loved every minute. The costumes, the titles, the locations, the soundtrack – all to die for.
James Norton plays Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, a disillusioned, handsome intellectual whose life is, rather improbably, saved by Napoleon after the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805 – but you know your history dates. The filming was done around the same time as Happy Valley which would have muddled me but he’s an actor at the top of his game.
The book also is highly recommended to anyone who hasn’t yet read it. I find it fascinating and couldn’t put it down the first time I read it (completely the opposite experience with *Moby Dick*).
In case anyone is interested, the best translation I’ve come across — fresh and captivating — is the version by the husband-and-wife team of Larissa Volokhonsky and Richard Pevear. That said, it is not without controversy:
https://archive.nytimes.com/readingroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/defending-pevear-and-volokhonsky/
Thank you, Charles. The Reading Room article is illuminating. The liberties with Tolstoy’s text is even more glaring in the Andrew Davies adaptation.
I am glad Charles Jenkins flagged up the Reading Room comment by Sam Tanenhaus and others on translating Tolstoy. And I was chuffed by your acknowledging Andrew Davies’ “glaring liberties”, in his 2016 adaptation not least because I thought you had hitherto been a bit bold in your praise for the great populariser.
I have fretted a bit over Davies adaptations. I, in common with plenty of others, believe he over-sexes the classics. The anachronism comes in ripping away the veils of discretion which were in place hundreds of years ago, in Austen for instance.
The larger charge is that Davies cannot resist vulgarising the classics, which looked likely with his War and Peace. There are two obvious responses to this charge. One might be that it is false (and I’d have to read the original and see the show again to be sure). The other is that the modern audience won’t take an interest in historic characters unless their locutions and mores are re-expressed.
Davies has an undeniable facility as a screen adaptor, perhaps even a great talent. But it is worth discussing whether he does as much good as is commonly supposed, and whether he doesn’t do some damage along the way.
I thought the “Davies” 2005 Bleak House was masterly, though I rather hope its success owed more to fabulous acting, direction, and camera-work than to Davies’ script. (There is a fascinating piece on these matters at https://theadaptationstation.com/tag/andrew-davies/). Maybe the same can be said of Davies’ 1998 TV version of Vanity Fair, which as I recall bowled me over.
By the way, in general, I have been very struck that the mid- and even late-20th Century TV adaptations of the classics were indeed sort of “stagey”. But they often stand up very well, shaking scenery and all. The 1974 Pallisers makes the case. It is a great thing that all these versions, including Davies’, will presumably be available for future audiences. They can decide for themselves which best conveyed or most traduced – or handily plundered – our literary canon.