Barnaby Rudge (TV Series 1960– ) Poster

(1960– )

User Reviews

Review this title
2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Will do for now Warning: Spoilers
Barnaby Rudge is the forgotten Dickens novel.

I forgot to read it 30 years ago, when I read all the others. The movie and TV industry forgot to dramatise it. As a collector of Dickens on screen, I am spoilt for choice when it comes to Oliver Twist, Great Expectations, Nicholas Nickleby and David Copperfield and there are at least two versions of all the other novels, but this 1960 BBC serial is the only Barnaby Rudge to have appeared since the early silent era.

Because it was originally a series of live broadcasts I assumed that it had immediately disappeared into the ether and Barnaby Rudge would continue to be hole in my collection. I was wrong.

The broadcasts were filmed off monitors and so escaped the mass wiping of the BBC's videotape archive. These recordings survived and have surfaced on DVD, so I finally have a complete set of Dickens dramas.

The recordings are in good shape and the picture quality is much better than I expected. Of course, the 405 line image is quite low definition, but the scan lines don't really show until the final episode when, for some reason, they suddenly become highly visible.

This 13 part serial was an ambitious project and is a more lavish production than I was expecting. It is a very faithful and very comprehensive adaptation of the book, with a large cast, scores of extras (although not enough) and dozens of sets.

Being live, it is inevitable that there are a few fluffed lines but the cast seem well rehearsed and handle the elaborate Dickensian dialogue with remarkable assurance. It is actually a very slick production but it does pose a problem for a modern audience.

In 1960, the BBC still saw television drama in terms of Theatre, not cinema. Despite the best efforts of the director and some of the cast, Barnaby Rudge is best viewed as a play rather than a TV movie.

Many of the performances come straight off the stage: Joan Hickson, Barbara Hicks and Timothy Bateson are all acting for people sitting fifty feet away in the stalls, not ten feet away from their TV screens. However, other actors (e.g. Raymond Huntley and Peter Williams) do scale their performances down for the small screen.

Irrespective of style, the acting is variable and it is unfortunate that some of the worst performances are of key characters.

Barbara Hicks's Miggs shrieks relentlessly throughout and soon tried my patience, while Timothy Bateson's Simon Tappertit is a primping, mugging, deluded buffoon, who never convinces as a leader or as a key figure in the riots.

Even more unfortunate is John Wood's Barnaby. He is a good-hearted simpleton: strong and brave, but gullible and easily led. I think it is probably a difficult part to get right and I don't pretend to know how it should be played, but this is not it. Wood looks bemused rather than simple-minded and there is a hint of Kenneth Williams his line reading, so his Barnaby sounds more gay than fey.

However, the major problem is the book itself. It has been ignored by television for a reason.

The story is too big for the tight budgets of most BBC dramas. Its centrepiece is a meticulously-researched, hour-by-hour, recreation of the Gordon Riots of 1780, when for a few days London was in the control of a mob. Understandably, the scenes of the storming of Parliament and the burning of Newgate prison, shot live in a studio, are under-populated and unconvincing. They really needed to be pre-filmed but, in the days before co-production, filming on this scale would have been too expensive for the BBC.

More importantly, the book is poorly structured. The first 300 pages introduce a wide range of characters and set up a number of intertwining sub-plots: a murder mystery; a threatening stranger; two bitter enemies; two troubled love affairs; a clash between father and son; a rebellious apprentice; a treacherous gypsy and so on. It is noticeable that Barnaby is only a very minor figure in all this. Nonetheless, the pot is simmering nicely when Dickens suddenly announces: "and so five years passed, about which this narrative is silent."

This is a real slap in the face for the reader, because the story then resumes with a new set of characters and veers off in a completely different direction. All those intriguing plot lines are put on hold for hundreds of pages. Many of the original characters do pop up from time to time, and Barnaby becomes a much more important figure, but some disappear entirely and only re-emerge near the end of the book. It is as if Dickens suddenly remembers that there are mysteries still to be uncovered and love affairs still to be resolved and he only has a hundred pages in which to do it. He does manage to tie up all the loose ends but only in a slightly hurried and perfunctory way.

This production minimises the impact of that gaping hole in the story by burying it in the middle of an episode and only making minimal reference to the five years that have passed. Even so, there is no way to disguise the fact that the second six or seven episodes have very little to do with the first six.

I would still love to see Barnaby Rudge shot on a budget and a scale appropriate to its subject matter, but because of this weakness in the book I think this is unlikely to happen. It looks as if I will have to settle for this version.

However, I can live with that. This Barnaby Rudge may be somewhat archaic and is clearly under-funded, but it is quite accomplished in its own way and is certainly good enough to keep me satisfied until something better comes along.
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A very respectable adaptation of one of Dickens' weakest books
TheLittleSongbird5 September 2013
Barnaby Rudge is not Charles Dickens at his best, for this viewer it is one of his weakest books(perhaps even his weakest), I do agree that it is not very well structured, bogged down by too many incidents and relationships, and the characterisations of the characters are on the syrupy side with rather unconvincing villains as well. For Dickens fans though it is still worth a read, because as ever with Dickens it is evocative of the time and there is a social purpose behind it. This 1960 series is most respectable and more than makes do for the only adaptation(to knowledge) of the book available. Not perfect by all means. Some of the camera work is static(mostly in the more wordy scenes), some big scenes are under-populated and show some under-funding and not all the casting works. Barbara Hicks is agreed too shrill, Timothy Bateson relies far too much on mugging and a lot of it is irritating and John Wood while mostly good natured like his character can seem a little too bewildered. The production values are relatively lavish even within the budget and is of reasonable quality. There is a lot of talk in the dialogue, but it is faithfully adapted and is very intelligently written. The storytelling is also faithful, sustains itself well over a long but never stodgy-feeling length, and does a good job at being coherent, not easy for adapting a book that isn't very well-structured. The acting mostly is fine even with some staginess(not entirely inappropriate though actually), Raymond Huntley, Peter Williams and Arthur Borough are very good and feel very natural within the surroundings. Joan Hickson is also her old reliable self. So all in all, not mind-blowing and not one of the all-time great Dickens adaptations, but respectable and interesting. If you can find it, it is definitely worth watching. 7/10 Bethany Cox
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed