Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Series 3 Episode 9


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 215
Date: Dec 28 3:35 PM, 2017
RE: Series 3 Episode 9
Permalink  
 


In case you are interested, I have posted further thoughts I have in the topic post Saga (novels) about marriage (s). I thought it was more appropriate there but it has relevance to the discussion here. 

Enjoy Happy New Year. 



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 249
Date: Dec 26 9:35 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Stella wrote:

...Eleanor seems to have claimed too much power I think which she may not have been able to do if there had been one director throughout all the series.

 

Yes, in the 1970s series the most serious problems stemmed from directors and script writers who wanted to change essential aspects of the Poldark stories (like burning down Trenwith). Memoirs was written in 2003 and WG discusses his anger at the misrepresentations made in the scripts for the early episodes of the '70s series (pp 169-170). He states, "What stuck in my crop beyond all swallowing were the ridiculous liberties taken with the characters and with the stories." WG did not have a problem with the actors. Unlike ET, they wanted their performances to be historically accurate.  



__________________


Graduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 583
Date: Dec 26 4:27 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Hollyhock wrote:

      Stella wrote:

I have no definite ideas but it seems from interviews I have seen with Eleanor Tomlinson that she might have been pushing for Demelza to be a 'modern' woman and be free to do as she pleases. This is only my speculation.

Stella I agree. Furthermore I believe WG himself validates this view in his insightful observations about historical novels (Memoirs of a Private Man, pp. 211-212). He divides historical novels into three classes and explains that "in all classes one has to attempt a degree of historical truth as well as a truth to human nature. Man has not changed, but his reaction to certain life patterns has. Unless the writer can understand these and transmit his understanding to the reader, his characters are simply modern people in fancy dress."

This certainly applies to DH and Eleanor Tomlinson's gross distortion of Demelza's character. 


 Hollyhock - what a gem you found! I must re-read that book. He wrote that some time after the 1970s series and after he had seen what can happen. I think Aidan keeps his character rooted in the 18th century. He isn't vengeful but devastated by Demelza's infidelity. Eleanor seems to have claimed too much power I think which she may not have been able to do if there had been one director throughout all the series.



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 249
Date: Dec 26 3:58 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

      Stella wrote:

I have no definite ideas but it seems from interviews I have seen with Eleanor Tomlinson that she might have been pushing for Demelza to be a 'modern' woman and be free to do as she pleases. This is only my speculation.

Stella I agree. Furthermore I believe WG himself validates this view in his insightful observations about historical novels (Memoirs of a Private Man, pp. 211-212). He divides historical novels into three classes and explains that "in all classes one has to attempt a degree of historical truth as well as a truth to human nature. Man has not changed, but his reaction to certain life patterns has. Unless the writer can understand these and transmit his understanding to the reader, his characters are simply modern people in fancy dress."

This certainly applies to DH and Eleanor Tomlinson's gross distortion of Demelza's character. 



__________________


Graduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 583
Date: Dec 25 6:05 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Dave wrote:

Interesting.  Any ideas why she strayed from this thinking?


 I have no definite ideas but it seems from interviews I have seen with Eleanor Tomlinson that she might have been pushing for Demelza to be a 'modern' woman and be free to do as she pleases. This is only my speculation.



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 215
Date: Dec 25 4:09 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Interesting.  Any ideas why she strayed from this thinking?



__________________


Graduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 583
Date: Dec 25 2:57 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

https://audioboom.com/posts/1962251-are-you-excited-about-the-new-series-of-poldark-filming-starts-next-month-i-ve-been-talking-to-the-writer-debbie-horsfield

An interesting interview with Debbie Horsfield before filming for series 1 began. The assurances she gave here that she would keep close to the books are interesting especially as she has strayed a long way from her undertakings here.



-- Edited by Stella Poldark on Monday 25th of December 2017 06:03:02 PM

__________________


Graduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 583
Date: Dec 23 11:32 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Little Henry wrote:

I probably wouldn't be a good judge of acting as I'm more caught up in the words the actors say.  When Ross tells Demelza to find another pet or to look elsewhere for the man she wants (I'm not sure of the exact words but you know what I mean) or when Demelza tells Ross once again "Will you never learn" I don't really care how well acted it is I just know it's out of character and not in the spirit of the books and makes me cringe.  Both Eleanor and Aidan have had some wonderfully perfect moments for me also.  I think generally the cast is excellent.  Right now the bad is outweighing the good for me and I can't watch the series but I'm rereading the books to reaffirm how R & D really talked to each other.


 Little Henry - You are not alone. I, too, am re-reading the books to remind myself that Ross and Demelza's relationship is how I remember it and not how it is told in the television series. I agree that the acting is mostly very good; it is the scripts that are lacking.



__________________


Initiate

Status: Offline
Posts: 97
Date: Dec 23 10:01 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I probably wouldn't be a good judge of acting as I'm more caught up in the words the actors say.  When Ross tells Demelza to find another pet or to look elsewhere for the man she wants (I'm not sure of the exact words but you know what I mean) or when Demelza tells Ross once again "Will you never learn" I don't really care how well acted it is I just know it's out of character and not in the spirit of the books and makes me cringe.  Both Eleanor and Aidan have had some wonderfully perfect moments for me also.  I think generally the cast is excellent.  Right now the bad is outweighing the good for me and I can't watch the series but I'm rereading the books to reaffirm how R & D really talked to each other.



__________________


Newbie

Status: Offline
Posts: 1
Date: Dec 23 7:41 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

First, let me say I am a big fan of both the new Poldark film series and all of the Poldark novels.  For me, they serve as companion pieces.  I also enjoy reading the various comments and discussions here and getting different points of views.  Everyone's opinions have challenged my thinking in a good way.   I also have been watching the Victoria series.  Regarding Jenna Coleman, I seem to recall that she and Tom Hughes (Prince Albert) are a real life live-in couple.  If so, one wonders how much of an emotional acting stretch is there for these actors in their scenes together.  Regarding the Poldark actors, they seem to be acting against type, i.e. in public interviews, Turner seems quite "street savvy" and Tomlinson seems quite poised and posh.  Reportedly, the Poldark actors have never been a real life couple but have managed to generate a lot of film scene emotion and near fan hysteria (see Twitter postings).  So who really are the better actors?

I recently "binged" watched all 27 episodes of the new Poldark series and then I went back a re-read Ross Poldark, Warleggan and Four Swans.  For me, all the major "story arcs" have been captured on film.  I also think the film series has softened the Elizabeth character (she is less cold and manipulative) than in the novels and at the same time hardened Demelza (much more assertive and edgy) than in the novels.  While script writing and acting can influence the film results, so too does the directing.  And there have been several directors across the three series that may contribute to some of the "unevenness". 

One last comment, after my film binge watching, I was convinced that Tomlinson "owned" the last 3 episodes of Series 2 with her fine acting.  Much of what was written as her thoughts in the Warleggan novel, she conveyed orally and emotionally on screen. 



__________________


Fan

Status: Offline
Posts: 48
Date: Dec 22 12:46 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Dave wrote:

I haven't read that book yet. I have so far had always understood Demelza never acknowledge her intimacy with Armitage. 


 The extract is from Book 2 Chapter 9 of 'Bella Poldark.' I think it is the only time that Demelza describes her encounter with Hugh as a 'dire event.' How much Clowance knows about it is difficult to ascertain. Demelza had already told her that she had felt 'that electric charge' in two men (The Loving Cup Bk2 Ch3.) Clowance probably realised that the other man must have appeared during the time Demelza had been married to Ross and the fact that Clowance 'already knows much' could mean that Demelza had told her some of the story.

 



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 215
Date: Dec 21 5:55 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I haven't read that book yet. I have so far had always understood Demelza never acknowledge her intimacy with Armitage. 



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 215
Date: Dec 21 5:53 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I totally agree with all of the posts here. E.T. was wonderful in the season one. Her age I am sure had much to do with it. I also agree with the idea that today's producers want relevance in their productions of these historical and novel adaptations. However I don't agree with their doing it, it is a dumbing down of  their viewers and not necessary I believe.   I also understand that economics has a tremendous influence on producing these stories. Time is another big factor. Maybe they ought to do the Doc Martin tempo. Skip a year between seasons. 

However getting back to Jenna Coleman in Victoria. As I stated previously I am watching the rerun and have only seen the first episode. I was not so much aware of Jenna C. the first time around, however, I am more impressed with her with my second time. Now maybe that will change when I see the whole season reruns. I know this is off topic and will write no more on this. It just I couldn't help comparing J.C. with E.T. I read where E.T. is in competition with her in regards to their acting in their respective series. Is anyone else watching the rerun and what do you think? 



__________________


Fan

Status: Offline
Posts: 48
Date: Dec 21 11:31 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I agree with Stella about Poldark series one. 

ET was excellent as the ragged teenage Demelza gradually finding her feet and then becoming mistress of Nampara. I think ET used all of her experience and acting talents to produce some memorable scenes with AT and the others.

The problem now is that in series three, when Demelza as the mother of three children and a wife of nine years should be showing more maturity and loyalty to her family, too much of that teenage angst and flippancy remains in ET's acting. 

I think she has been encouraged by DH to take 'ownership' of Demelza rather than interpret the character from the descriptions and storylines in the books, which has been a grave mistake. WG would not have sanctioned any of Demelza's actions and outbursts in series three, it was simply not in Demelza's nature to do those things now that she had reached her mid twenties.

I would like to encourage ET to sit down and at least read significant passages in all the Poldark novels such as the the one in 'Bella Poldark' where Demelza reminds Clowance......

'Clowance, I do not greatly enjoy seeing your father flirting with some handsome woman, any more than he would take too kindly if I flirted outrageously with some handsome man, as has happened now and then in the past. But we have been together for a very long time, him and me, and except for one dire event on his side, and one dire event on mine - of which you already know much and need have no expectation of hearing more from me now - we have been a veritable Darby and Joan to each other.

....But mark you, we still feel as much for each other, your father and me, as we have always felt. In our lives, and I'm serious now, we have had so much loving, so very much loving. It has not staled. It varies from year to year, but it keeps always to a constant pitch of - of being deeply and truly involved. And desirous. Against this - if you put this against your father having a frolic on the dance floor with the beautiful second wife of his oldest enemy - this frolic is as important as a ball of fluff.'

Yes, these words are spoken many years later than the events in series three and are said with hindsight but it is words like these, of which there are hundreds more, that can help an actor truly understand the character, rather than ignore the text and fashion something new and modern for today's audience.

 



__________________


Graduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 583
Date: Dec 21 10:32 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Dark mare wrote

In fairness to the actors, they have to owe their allegiance to Debbie Horsfield and the producers, not Winston Graham and his heirs.  Mammoth signs their paychecks, not Winston Graham. I suspect most of them had never read the books before they were offered their roles so why would they be invested in them? The other thing to consider is this was Debbie Horsfield's first adaptation project. She isn't Merchant and Ivory. 

___________________________________________________________

Both Aidan Turner and Eleanor Tomlinson were sent the first two books. Subsequently, in interviews, both said they had read them. Since then they have both mentioned the books. Of course it is DH who writes the scripts but some of us think Eleanor had some input into her scripts as she betrays a high degree of enthusiasm for them because they portray a 'modern' woman. She is clearly happy with the distortions of the two main characters while Aidan gives the impression of not being as happy with all the bickering that goes on between them which was definitely not in the books. It depends on whether one loves the books and wants to see them portrayed faithfully or whether viewers are happy to have an historical novel with modern characters. Of course Demelza was ahead of her time but not to the extent she is portrayed by DH.

The books are about a marriage - a specific marriage between Ross and Demelza. With all the distortions of this relationship it is no longer the story that Winston wrote.



__________________


Graduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 558
Date: Dec 21 5:42 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Little Henry wrote:

I think there is a sameness in the scriptwriting today in the name of making a period drama "relevant" to today's audience.  They seem afraid that no one will watch if we're not assured that we will find it relevant.  I think they are wrong and the audience will find their own relevancies without it being referenced in the script.  I find it very jarring and it takes me right out of the drama when I hear something that doesn't sound right for the times.  I'm rather surprised as in Canada we think the British do such wonderful period pieces and that they are so accurate to the times.  I wonder if I'm just noticing this because of "Poldark" and being aware of the differences in what the characters say from the dialogue in the books.  Is it something new or has it been going on for ages?  I watched a Canadian show "Murdoch Mysteries", which takes place in the early 1900's, the other night and it was full of pointed comments about women that didn't ring true for the times.  I also just watched an episode of "Desperate Romantics" and was shocked at the similarities of some of Rossetti's (Aidan Turner) lines to what he says in "Poldark".  I then read that the TV show is not an accurate portrayal at all.  There is something non-creative about all this sameness.  So I think the writers should be above this and care more for the books they are adapting but I also wish the actors would love their characters as written in the books but I think they haven't learned to love the book characters as we do.  They really seem to admire and trust DH and she is their guide rather than the books. 


In fairness to the actors, they have to owe their allegiance to Debbie Horsfield and the producers, not Winston Graham and his heirs.  Mammoth signs their paychecks, not Winston Graham. I suspect most of them had never read the books before they were offered their roles so why would they be invested in them? The other thing to consider is this was Debbie Horsfield's first adaptation project. She isn't Merchant and Ivory. 



__________________


Initiate

Status: Offline
Posts: 97
Date: Dec 20 10:57 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I think there is a sameness in the scriptwriting today in the name of making a period drama "relevant" to today's audience.  They seem afraid that no one will watch if we're not assured that we will find it relevant.  I think they are wrong and the audience will find their own relevancies without it being referenced in the script.  I find it very jarring and it takes me right out of the drama when I hear something that doesn't sound right for the times.  I'm rather surprised as in Canada we think the British do such wonderful period pieces and that they are so accurate to the times.  I wonder if I'm just noticing this because of "Poldark" and being aware of the differences in what the characters say from the dialogue in the books.  Is it something new or has it been going on for ages?  I watched a Canadian show "Murdoch Mysteries", which takes place in the early 1900's, the other night and it was full of pointed comments about women that didn't ring true for the times.  I also just watched an episode of "Desperate Romantics" and was shocked at the similarities of some of Rossetti's (Aidan Turner) lines to what he says in "Poldark".  I then read that the TV show is not an accurate portrayal at all.  There is something non-creative about all this sameness.  So I think the writers should be above this and care more for the books they are adapting but I also wish the actors would love their characters as written in the books but I think they haven't learned to love the book characters as we do.  They really seem to admire and trust DH and she is their guide rather than the books. 



__________________


Graduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 583
Date: Dec 20 4:49 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Dave wrote:

I am watching the rerun of season one Victoria on the PBS United States Public TV. I am very impressed with the portrayal and acting of the actress Jenna Coleman who as you know plays The Queen. It made me wonder about E.T. as Demelza. I am disappointed with her acting in this season's series three.

 I wonder is it she is overwhelmed by the role as Demelza?

 Is it due to the inadequate script writing?

Or is the directing is poor?

 

Maybe all three? Anybody care to comment, please.  


 Dave I do not agree with you about Jenna Coleman's acting ability. I think it's very poor. Turning to E.T. I would say that she was excellent in series 1, good in parts of series 2 and then got stuck in a rut of the horrible nagging wife. I think it is a combination of poor scripts and poor acting. ET has gone her own way with the character of Demelza so is unable to get guidance from the books as she was in series 1. Such a pity. disbelief cry



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 215
Date: Dec 20 2:13 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I am watching the rerun of season one Victoria on the PBS United States Public TV. I am very impressed with the portrayal and acting of the actress Jenna Coleman who as you know plays The Queen. It made me wonder about E.T. as Demelza. I am disappointed with her acting in this season's series three.

 I wonder is it she is overwhelmed by the role as Demelza?

 Is it due to the inadequate script writing?

Or is the directing is poor?

 

Maybe all three? Anybody care to comment, please.  



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 215
Date: Dec 12 1:47 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

You probably right, only I hope not. Aren't we all glad we have read the books. Pity the poor schlubs who haven't. 



__________________


Newbie

Status: Offline
Posts: 3
Date: Dec 12 1:26 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Moorland Rambler wrote:

 

Poldarkmmmuses said

I am one of many on social media who are as disappointed by the way the series has gone this year. Given what theyve done I am scared to pieces at what they will do next series. 

______________________________________________________________________

 It seems that the basic premises of the series' executive production team (which now must be DH and ET) is to make sure that Demelza is never shown in a bad light, never makes mistakes and whatever she does is right, no matter how perverse, immoral, deceitful, disloyal and untrustworthy her actions seem to be. 

I am sure this will continue in series 4 with their depiction of 'The Angry Tide' when (for example) it will be right for her to have no empathy and show no remorse for how Ross is feeling after the HA affair, right to act like a teenage debutante in London society, right to encourage the company of Monk Adderley and right to wash her hands of all responsibility for the duel and its outcome. 

I would like to believe that this won't happen, but, in a superficial screenwriting way, it is much easier to blame Ross in 'The Angry Tide' than in 'The Four Swans' and look what they did there!

 



-- Edited by Moorland Rambler on Monday 27th of November 2017 02:14:25 PM


 Completely agree. 



__________________


Graduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 583
Date: Dec 2 12:32 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Little Henry wrote:

I thought I should report that I didn't get very far with the BBC with my complaint.  I didn't provide enough "detail to allow us to identify where the comments in question originated".  The moment has passed for me and I don't want to give it more time so I'm leaving it at that.  This series is on a train that won't stop and has been from the start.  My mind went back to my first impression of Demelza when she and Ross first met and she yelled "Don't call me child, mister" or something like that.  I remember asking why she would yell at a man who was helping her "and her little dog too".  And I'm still asking "why is she yelling at him"?  That's her character, to me ungrateful wretch, but to her probably, feisty.  To be positive, she has had some good moments too, usually when following the book character.


 Little Henry  - this is disappointing but helpful to me if I decide to write myself. It seems they want the series number,  episode number and the scene which would involve writing a mini thesis! I have thought of focusing on the contradictions e.g. DH saying that Demelza going off with Hugh to the beach was not revenge yet it directly followed Prudie's tale of Ross and Elizabeth in the church. I will Private message you. 



__________________


Initiate

Status: Offline
Posts: 97
Date: Dec 2 3:28 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I thought I should report that I didn't get very far with the BBC with my complaint.  I didn't provide enough "detail to allow us to identify where the comments in question originated".  The moment has passed for me and I don't want to give it more time so I'm leaving it at that.  This series is on a train that won't stop and has been from the start.  My mind went back to my first impression of Demelza when she and Ross first met and she yelled "Don't call me child, mister" or something like that.  I remember asking why she would yell at a man who was helping her "and her little dog too".  And I'm still asking "why is she yelling at him"?  That's her character, to me ungrateful wretch, but to her probably, feisty.  To be positive, she has had some good moments too, usually when following the book character.



__________________


Graduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 558
Date: Dec 1 10:26 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Stella Poldark wrote:
 Dark Mare - Your point is valid but that doesn't alter the fact that the absence of the Gimletts and their replacement by Prudie is used yet again for more distortions of the story and the characters. It would have been possible to give Prudie a much lower profile and keep her firmly in the category of 'servant'. DH decided to make her Demelza's friend and companion. The result has been, as has been pointed out by others, that instead of calming down Demelza when necessary, Prudie is used to wind her up. This has taken the series much further away from the books.

Except she wouldn't have been Prudie if she suddenly became a dutiful servant. Beatie Edney has a bit of a following here in America thanks to "Poldark Dish," an online series carried on the LA-based Anglophile Channel, and the show purportedly has acquired some fans among the "Poldark" production staff. (The "Poldark Dish" ladies were invited to the set to shoot interviews with various cast members -- including Caroline Blakiston on the day she filmed Agatha's death scene -- and were given roles as extras in one of George's courtroom scenes.) I don't know whether that had anything to do with Prudie being given a bigger role, but maybe it did.

I do agree that making Prudie a provocateur was a mistake. It just doesn't square with Season 2, when she was trying to talk Demelza out of attempting to get even with Ross. From Season 2 to Season 3, Prudie regresses from Demelza's surrogate mother to her smart-mouthed bestie.



__________________


Graduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 583
Date: Nov 30 9:59 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Dark Mare wrote:
Moorland Rambler wrote:

However, in the series, by retaining Prudie and not introducing the Gimletts, the household dynamics at Nampara have been changed completely. Instead of discreet and efficient service from the Gimletts who wouldn't dream of interfering in their employers' personal affairs, we have had to endure Prudie as a confidante of Demelza and, to a certain extent, antagonist of Ross.

It is this that has created the 'bickering' environment at Nampara that just doesn't exist in any of the books. You see it a lot in soap operas but not in quality drama.


 That is true, but she had to keep Jud and Prudie for the second season because they had roles to play in the story, and the Gimletts were practically invisible by comparison. By keeping them at Nampara, the producers didn't have to build another set and they saved the price of two actors (John and Joan). My point is if Graham had done justice by the Gimletts, they would have been included in the series. He probably wrote more words about Ross' chair than he did about them.


 Dark Mare - Your point is valid but that doesn't alter the fact that the absence of the Gimletts and their replacement by Prudie is used yet again for more distortions of the story and the characters. It would have been possible to give Prudie a much lower profile and keep her firmly in the category of 'servant'. DH decided to make her Demelza's friend and companion. The result has been, as has been pointed out by others, that instead of calming down Demelza when necessary, Prudie is used to wind her up. This has taken the series much further away from the books.



__________________


Graduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 558
Date: Nov 30 8:33 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Moorland Rambler wrote:

However, in the series, by retaining Prudie and not introducing the Gimletts, the household dynamics at Nampara have been changed completely. Instead of discreet and efficient service from the Gimletts who wouldn't dream of interfering in their employers' personal affairs, we have had to endure Prudie as a confidante of Demelza and, to a certain extent, antagonist of Ross.

It is this that has created the 'bickering' environment at Nampara that just doesn't exist in any of the books. You see it a lot in soap operas but not in quality drama.


 That is true, but she had to keep Jud and Prudie for the second season because they had roles to play in the story, and the Gimletts were practically invisible by comparison. By keeping them at Nampara, the producers didn't have to build another set and they saved the price of two actors (John and Joan). My point is if Graham had done justice by the Gimletts, they would have been included in the series. He probably wrote more words about Ross' chair than he did about them.



__________________


Fan

Status: Offline
Posts: 48
Date: Nov 30 4:28 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

However, in the series, by retaining Prudie and not introducing the Gimletts, the household dynamics at Nampara have been changed completely. Instead of discreet and efficient service from the Gimletts who wouldn't dream of interfering in their employers' personal affairs, we have had to endure Prudie as a confidante of Demelza and, to a certain extent, antagonist of Ross.

It is this that has created the 'bickering' environment at Nampara that just doesn't exist in any of the books. You see it a lot in soap operas but not in quality drama.



__________________


Graduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 558
Date: Nov 30 10:28 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Mrs Gimlett wrote:

Of course I was only being flippant and trying to raise the profile of that wonderful couple!

Actually, in the books, they are central to the story.  Not only do they begin by scouring Nampara and keeping it wholesome, tidy and well provisioned, they also help to nurse Demelza through her diphtheria.  Who knows what would have happened had it been Jud and Prudie!  Later on, without their unassuming loyalty and hard work, Ross would never have been able to go to London.  Gimlett was left in charge overall - especially when R&D went off to Paris - and they quietly went about their work without complaint  (in the early days without even payment). They were worth their weight in gold.  Ross realises this from time to time and WG includes some appreciation of them in Ross' thoughts. But, like most of us who grow accustomed to people who are around all the time, I don't think he ever quite realised how important they were.

What a couple! 

Humbly, Mrs Gimlett


The Gimletts were excellent servants who deserved better from Winston Graham. He made them little more than props. Yes, good servants are supposed to be discreet, know their place, keep their opinions to themselves and not take sides, but it is difficult to accept that an employer like Demelza, who blurred the lines between employer and employee both by pitching in wherever she was needed and by being uncomfortable with the whole notion of being served, would not have a closer  relationship with Jane Gimlett at least. They spent hours cooking together each day for years. But there are no scenes that give us a sense of anything approaching a friendship.

I suspect Debbie Horsfield kept Prudie and Jud around for the second series because it was too hard to believe that two good people, like the Gimletts, could watch someone as affable as Demelza go through all that trouble with Ross without being bothered by it. But there was nothing in the books to support that. Prudie's affection for Demelza was already established in the first two books, and she and Jud had no trouble speaking their minds to Ross. 



-- Edited by Dark Mare on Thursday 30th of November 2017 10:30:37 AM

__________________


Honorary Life Member. Forum Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 883
Date: Nov 30 9:12 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Of course I was only being flippant and trying to raise the profile of that wonderful couple!

Actually, in the books, they are central to the story.  Not only do they begin by scouring Nampara and keeping it wholesome, tidy and well provisioned, they also help to nurse Demelza through her diphtheria.  Who knows what would have happened had it been Jud and Prudie!  Later on, without their unassuming loyalty and hard work, Ross would never have been able to go to London.  Gimlett was left in charge overall - especially when R&D went off to Paris - and they quietly went about their work without complaint  (in the early days without even payment). They were worth their weight in gold.  Ross realises this from time to time and WG includes some appreciation of them in Ross' thoughts. But, like most of us who grow accustomed to people who are around all the time, I don't think he ever quite realised how important they were.

What a couple! 

Humbly, Mrs Gimlett



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 215
Date: Nov 29 8:55 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Ooouu you are so wicked Hollyhock. However, I think you are so correct in your imaginative assessment of D.H. and her world of TVland. 



-- Edited by Dave on Wednesday 29th of November 2017 09:01:18 PM

__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 249
Date: Nov 29 5:04 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

The series would definitely have benefited from the responsible and dignified presence of the Gimletts. But my FEAR is that under DH's hatchet the couple would have undergone complete character changes. Would she have turned John into a Peeping-Tom-French-Collaborator and Jane into a village gossipmonger and blackmailer? I shudder imagining DH's re-do of this loyal couple, all in the name of ratings.  



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 215
Date: Nov 29 3:10 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Of course, the Gimlett's would have made more sense. However, the economics, schedule and general production complications probably forbade it. I can forgive them or give the TV production some leeway here but they have wandered so far from the original story they must be admonished about that.



__________________


Graduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 583
Date: Nov 29 2:29 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Mrs Gimlett wrote:

I have said all along the Gimlett's should have been cast!!


Mrs G - They should have been cast and I have agreed with you all along about this. It would have made all the difference and might even have calmed Demelza and prevented all her rants! smile



__________________


Honorary Life Member. Forum Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 883
Date: Nov 29 9:06 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I have said all along the Gimlett's should have been cast!!



__________________


Newbie

Status: Offline
Posts: 6
Date: Nov 28 8:03 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I will watch. Iāll have to. Couldnāt bear for it to air and not be a part of it but this next series I will moderate my expectations to avoid being badly disappointed and frustrated. Last season I got so upset, screaming at the TV week after week. I chewed it over with friends and ended up feeling so guilty because of my negativity towards something I had previously loved. This time I will go into it knowing that itās going to be impossible ( and most unlikely, given recent scriptwriting for R and D) to portray so many crucial scenes on which the crux of their relationship and future story events rest with any integrity. So Iāll sip my wine and try to rise above it, preferring to return to the books for my fix of the real Poldark marriage. The other thing I feel has been missing too has been the humour. Jud has been written out and without her comedic counterpart, Prudieās transformed into someone very different from the original and not nearly as likeable.

__________________


Fan

Status: Offline
Posts: 48
Date: Nov 28 6:28 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Stella - I didn't express myself very well.

I will be recording the series, then hiding behind the sofa with ear plugs at the ready when I watch it.

What I meant to say was that particular scenes tend to turn out worse than I expected.

The signs are not good that series four will be any better than series three unless the emphasis turns back to staying as closely as possible to what was actually written in the final part of The Four Swans and the whole of The Angry Tide.

 



__________________


Graduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 583
Date: Nov 28 4:51 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Moorland Rambler wrote:
Nampara breeze wrote:

The Angry Tide is my very favourite of all the Poldark books and I dread to think what may be done to the original characters, having cringed and squirmed my way through season 3. I felt that the portrayal seen on screen reduced Ross and Demelzaās relationship to a series of petulant spats which degraded the characters and a relationship which has been beautifully described by WG. The original Demelza did not and never would have spoken in such a disrespectful way to her husband. Winston Grahamās characterisation of all those involved in the books was thankfully, historically accurate. Otherwise why bother setting the story in that period if you then impose modern actions and values on the characters? The comments made by the screenwriter and some of the actors involved have left me disillusioned and fearful that what is currently being filmed, will turn into a hatchet job on a much loved story and will be a pale reflection of the passionate, loving and mutually respectful fictional marriage created so cleverly by the author.


 I wonder if ET and DH are fans of 'Love Island' and have been indulging in too much of that 'reality' show recently. The first question the couples generally ask each other (to break the ice) is 'Did you cheat on your last girlfriend/boyfriend?' then they have a laugh and a joke about it. Maybe that's why the HA 'bit of fun' storyline went as it did.

To be a bit more serious, when they receive the first letter about Hugh's illness, I will be very surprised if Demelza questions Ross about the propriety of visiting Hugh without him as well as thanking Ross for his permission to go with Caroline as a 'chaperone.' This is far too eighteenth century for series four.

At first I thought they might cut that bit altogether but then they will have to give Hugh a chance to boast about his conquest and Demelza will probably sit there with a smug look on her face.

Yes, it is nightmarish to imagine but most of the nightmares I have imagined so far have not been as bad as what was actually screened.

 


Nampara Breeze - I too love The Angry Tide. It 's up there with the first 4 books. Like you I dread series 4.

Moorland Rambler - I hope you are right about series 4 being not as bad as we fear but I think, as we get nearer to the end of the 5 series, it will get worse as DH has nothing to lose and ET, it seems, doesn't care what the viewers and book readers think. I am tempted to follow Mrs G and not watch.

 



__________________


Fan

Status: Offline
Posts: 48
Date: Nov 28 4:42 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Nampara breeze wrote:

The Angry Tide is my very favourite of all the Poldark books and I dread to think what may be done to the original characters, having cringed and squirmed my way through season 3. I felt that the portrayal seen on screen reduced Ross and Demelzaās relationship to a series of petulant spats which degraded the characters and a relationship which has been beautifully described by WG. The original Demelza did not and never would have spoken in such a disrespectful way to her husband. Winston Grahamās characterisation of all those involved in the books was thankfully, historically accurate. Otherwise why bother setting the story in that period if you then impose modern actions and values on the characters? The comments made by the screenwriter and some of the actors involved have left me disillusioned and fearful that what is currently being filmed, will turn into a hatchet job on a much loved story and will be a pale reflection of the passionate, loving and mutually respectful fictional marriage created so cleverly by the author.


 I wonder if ET and DH are fans of 'Love Island' and have been indulging in too much of that 'reality' show recently. The first question the couples generally ask each other (to break the ice) is 'Did you cheat on your last girlfriend/boyfriend?' then they have a laugh and a joke about it. Maybe that's why the HA 'bit of fun' storyline went as it did.

To be a bit more serious, when they receive the first letter about Hugh's illness, I will be very surprised if Demelza questions Ross about the propriety of visiting Hugh without him as well as thanking Ross for his permission to go with Caroline as a 'chaperone.' This is far too eighteenth century for series four.

At first I thought they might cut that bit altogether but then they will have to give Hugh a chance to boast about his conquest and Demelza will probably sit there with a smug look on her face.

Yes, it is nightmarish to imagine but most of the nightmares I have imagined so far have not been as bad as what was actually screened.

 



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 215
Date: Nov 28 3:38 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Well done my feelings exactly. Sad.



__________________


Newbie

Status: Offline
Posts: 6
Date: Nov 27 9:20 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

The Angry Tide is my very favourite of all the Poldark books and I dread to think what may be done to the original characters, having cringed and squirmed my way through season 3. I felt that the portrayal seen on screen reduced Ross and Demelzaās relationship to a series of petulant spats which degraded the characters and a relationship which has been beautifully described by WG. The original Demelza did not and never would have spoken in such a disrespectful way to her husband. Winston Grahamās characterisation of all those involved in the books was thankfully, historically accurate. Otherwise why bother setting the story in that period if you then impose modern actions and values on the characters? The comments made by the screenwriter and some of the actors involved have left me disillusioned and fearful that what is currently being filmed, will turn into a hatchet job on a much loved story and will be a pale reflection of the passionate, loving and mutually respectful fictional marriage created so cleverly by the author.

__________________


Honorary Life Member. Forum Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 883
Date: Nov 27 7:07 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

  

Whatever happens in the next series I shall not be bothering to switch on to find out.  Since the end of the first series it has been downhill all the way.

What is Andrew Graham thinking of - to allow such horrors to happen?

 

Give me the books any day. You cannot go wrong with the originals.  biggrin

Mrs G

 



__________________


Graduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 583
Date: Nov 27 5:39 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Little Henry wrote:

It's been there from the start.  In the first season DH said a few times that Ross was not a hero ("We have never called him a hero").  On the DVD she notes "We can't make him look too stupid".  In the 2nd series of course Demelza is wronged but she abuses Ross physically, emotionally and spiritually with venom.  And of course in this season Ross drops from anti-hero to villain, more villainous than George because he hurts Demelza.  What kind of woman could write a line like "Not everyone in Cornwall is besotted by you" for a husband to say to his loved wife. So many more examples where the loveliness of their conversations, even when they disagree, becomes ugliness.  A few kisses on the cliff and a hug in bed are put in so that we won't think Ross is too bad.  I always wondered why she wanted Ross to be disliked but I see it now - to show that women will not put up with bad behaviour from a man.  So what if in this case it's mostly made up and she's using another author's story to do it.  Yes, I'm  scared for the next season as I pray that ET was not using words from the script in her interviews.  I don't know where I heard it or if I made it up but the quote has always stayed with me regarding other "feminist" works:  "Men are idiots and women can do no wrong."  I don't believe true feminism should be like this and I don't know what this branch is called.  I wrote to the BBC and to Mammoth Screen with my small protest as to Demelza's character - I just thought someone should stand up for WG's Demelza.


 Little Henry - I hope you will let us know if you get a reply from the BBC. I would be very interested to read their comments.



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 249
Date: Nov 27 5:21 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Moreland Rambler wrote:

______________________________________________________________

It seems that the basic premises of the series' executive production team (which now must be DH and ET) is to make sure that Demelza is never shown in a bad light, never makes mistakes and whatever she does is right, no matter how perverse, immoral, deceitful, disloyal and untrustworthy her actions seem to be. 

I am sure this will continue in series 4 with their depiction of 'The Angry Tide' when (for example) it will be right for her to have no empathy and show no remorse for how Ross is feeling after the HA affair, right to act like a teenage debutante in London society, right to encourage the company of Monk Adderley and right to wash her hands of all responsibility for the duel and its outcome. 

I would like to believe that this won't happen, but, in a superficial screenwriting way, it is much easier to blame Ross in 'The Angry Tide' than in 'The Four Swans' and look what they did there!

____________________________________________________________

 

Moreland Rambler--I agree with all you say. 



__________________


Initiate

Status: Offline
Posts: 97
Date: Nov 27 5:07 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

It's been there from the start.  In the first season DH said a few times that Ross was not a hero ("We have never called him a hero").  On the DVD she notes "We can't make him look too stupid".  In the 2nd series of course Demelza is wronged but she abuses Ross physically, emotionally and spiritually with venom.  And of course in this season Ross drops from anti-hero to villain, more villainous than George because he hurts Demelza.  What kind of woman could write a line like "Not everyone in Cornwall is besotted by you" for a husband to say to his loved wife. So many more examples where the loveliness of their conversations, even when they disagree, becomes ugliness.  A few kisses on the cliff and a hug in bed are put in so that we won't think Ross is too bad.  I always wondered why she wanted Ross to be disliked but I see it now - to show that women will not put up with bad behaviour from a man.  So what if in this case it's mostly made up and she's using another author's story to do it.  Yes, I'm  scared for the next season as I pray that ET was not using words from the script in her interviews.  I don't know where I heard it or if I made it up but the quote has always stayed with me regarding other "feminist" works:  "Men are idiots and women can do no wrong."  I don't believe true feminism should be like this and I don't know what this branch is called.  I wrote to the BBC and to Mammoth Screen with my small protest as to Demelza's character - I just thought someone should stand up for WG's Demelza.



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 249
Date: Nov 27 5:04 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Brightgirl wrote:

The following youtube video was also submitted by PBS/Masterpiece.  Brief interviews with Aidan, Eleanor, Josh and Debbie Horsefield about Demelza and Hugh's relationship.  Just so sad this misinterpretation of the books.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-U_eVIEThM&feature=youtu.be

 

I was appalled by ET's insensitive comments about the Demelza-HA sex scene. In proclaiming her betrayal of Ross her favorite scene she proudly flaunts her perverted sense of morality. I cringe when thinking of impressionable young fans who may be influenced by ET's cavalier attitude towards adultery.

Equally disturbing was DH's claim that Demelza's adultery was not a 'revenge thing.' Her (DH's) expressions belie this. Near the end of her comments, she laughingly states that Ross found the experience 'traumatic' and seems gleeful over his heartache. Retribution seems to be part of both ET and DH's distasteful agenda. 

 



__________________


Graduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 583
Date: Nov 27 2:07 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Moorland Rambler wrote:

It seems that the basic premises of the series' executive production team (which now must be DH and ET) is to make sure that Demelza is never shown in a bad light, never makes mistakes and whatever she does is right, no matter how perverse, immoral, deceitful, disloyal and untrustworthy her actions seem to be. 

I am sure this will continue in series 4 with their depiction of 'The Angry Tide' when (for example) it will be right for her to have no empathy and show no remorse for how Ross is feeling after the HA affair, right to act like a teenage debutante in London society, right to encourage the company of Monk Adderley and right to wash her hands of all responsibility for the duel and its outcome. 

I would like to believe that this won't happen, but, in a superficial screenwriting way, it is much easier to blame Ross in 'The Angry Tide' than in 'The Four Swans' and look what they did there!

 


 Moorland rambler - sadly I have to agree with your fears about series 4. I re-read The Angry Tide recently and noted that, once Ross returned to Nampara  from London after the duel  with Monk Adderley, Demelza apologised to Ross for her behaviour in just leaving without a word. I wonder if her apology will be included in series 4. Somehow I doubt it. hmm



-- Edited by Stella Poldark on Monday 27th of November 2017 05:32:27 PM

__________________


Fan

Status: Offline
Posts: 48
Date: Nov 27 1:57 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

 

Poldarkmmmuses said

I am one of many on social media who are as disappointed by the way the series has gone this year. Given what theyve done I am scared to pieces at what they will do next series. 

______________________________________________________________________

 It seems that the basic premises of the series' executive production team (which now must be DH and ET) is to make sure that Demelza is never shown in a bad light, never makes mistakes and whatever she does is right, no matter how perverse, immoral, deceitful, disloyal and untrustworthy her actions seem to be. 

I am sure this will continue in series 4 with their depiction of 'The Angry Tide' when (for example) it will be right for her to have no empathy and show no remorse for how Ross is feeling after the HA affair, right to act like a teenage debutante in London society, right to encourage the company of Monk Adderley and right to wash her hands of all responsibility for the duel and its outcome. 

I would like to believe that this won't happen, but, in a superficial screenwriting way, it is much easier to blame Ross in 'The Angry Tide' than in 'The Four Swans' and look what they did there!

 



-- Edited by Moorland Rambler on Monday 27th of November 2017 02:14:25 PM

__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 215
Date: Nov 27 1:47 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I am very free in sending letters to my local Public Television Station which broadcasts these Brit Bits. You betcha I am gonna complain about what they've done with W.G.'s masterpiece. If enough of us complain then maybe they will shape up for the next series. Will there be one? It helps if you are a supporter ($$$)  of these stations. 



__________________


Newbie

Status: Offline
Posts: 3
Date: Nov 26 9:35 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I am one of many on social media who are as disappointed by the way the series has gone this year. Given what theyve done I am scared to pieces at what they will do next series. 



-- Edited by poldarkmmmuses on Sunday 26th of November 2017 09:41:47 PM

__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 215
Date: Nov 26 2:24 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Gee I thought all actors when they are portray real life characters or ones from a book would read about them and read the book(s). How unprofessional of an actor actress not to do so.



-- Edited by Dave on Sunday 26th of November 2017 02:26:24 PM

__________________
1 2 3  >  Last»  | Page of 3  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.