6/10
Good if you have not read the book.
16 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
"Gaudy Night" is different from the other Dorothy Sayers mysteries in that Lord Peter Wimsey is much less in evidence -he actually appears mostly in the third part of the book , as a deus ex machina. It is a long novel,in which the "mystery" part is secondary to other elements.

The adaptation has taken a hatchet to the novel and chopped off large and significant parts of it. The deletion of characters like Lord Peter's nephew and of Mr. Jones" and -inexcusably- of the element of the ivory chessmen diminishes -for me at least- a lot of the charm of the original. What remains is a mystery story, nothing special, with lots of atmosphere. Very little remains of the original, extremely well-done development of the characters, nothing which explains why at the end Harriet decides to marry Peter. If you have read the book, don't see the movie.

If, however, you have not read the book, the movie is worth seeing.Edward Petherbridge is excellent as Wimsey, better than Ian Carmichael. Harriet Walter is also first-rate as Harriet Vane. Richard Morant does not quite fit the role of Bunter. The film is made with the usual BBC care for detail and you will pass some enjoyable hours. THEN read the book and think what this film could have been.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed