The Golden Bowl (TV Mini Series 1972– ) Poster

(1972– )

User Reviews

Review this title
8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Good, deft take on a difficult novel
ericl-217 November 1999
Masterpiece Theatre productions of the 1970s get a lot of kidding, most of it no doubt deserved, these days. But this one gets high marks from me for taking on a novel that's extraordinarily difficult to film (how to build a nearly six-hour drama around a series of events that hardly add up to a story?) and getting it amazingly right.

Jack Pulman, the BBC's longtime great books adapter, does a sturdy job creating credible scenes out of sparse dialog, too much dialog (in other cases), and sometimes yards and yards of descriptive prose that burrows into the characters' minds in ways that would seem impossible to make clear on film.

The result is wordy, with an intrusive narrator, but I can't imagine how else it could be done. As a tale, the novel stands on James' ability to convey the slowly evolving, almost imperceptible changes in the characters' attitudes towards each other. The fact that it took 6 hours to spool out with much of James' intentions intact makes me wonder about the Merchant Ivory version we're about to be graced with: how could they possibly squeeze it all into less than 2 hours without making the whole thing seem like a trivial, almost implausible love affair of little intrinsic interest (although very well dressed!)? This version makes it all seem predestined, almost uncanny, full of wider meaning.

Direction serves the script well, given obvious limitations in production values. One real flaw: acting is perhaps too low key, even from a couple of distinguished veterans as Barry Morse and Daniel Massey. The female leads are passable, and Gayle Hunnicutt as Charlotte has some vivid, passionate moments, but overall their performances come off as less than fully fleshed out. Could be the director's fault: subtle doesn't necessarily mean dampened-down. Best - fortunately - is Cyril Cusack as the narrator, Bob Assingham. Without his witty delivery, the narrative-driven script would feel leaden.

Kudos for a fine adaptation that had me running back to the book.
18 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Among the Best Television Ever
mark_r_harris27 June 2000
Alistair Cooke, in introducing a re-broadcast of this six-hour series, called it the finest ever shown on Masterpiece Theater, and he'll get no argument from me: it was superb. I quite agree with my fellow commentor's perception that it was the slow unfolding over six hours that made the material mesmerize (the novel is very long too), so I share his concern about the Merchant/Ivory production, but I suppose we'll see. In any case, do not miss this version if you get the chance to view it. Following James's subtle analysis of human motivations is, Cooke memorably said, like "entering the mind of Sigmund Freud," and the greatest compliment I can pay this adaptation is that it does justice to that subtlety. I find the performances excellent, too (whatever happened to Gayle Hunnicutt, who shows such talent here?). And there's a memorable use of Ravel on the soundtrack.
21 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the Finest Productions Ever Seen on Television
shoozer12 January 2013
This is a masterpiece....essential viewing for anyone examining the translation of Henry James to film, theater, or television. The screenplay is excellent, the production is impeccably cast. So far superior to the movie version in the later 90's it's not worth comparing. Gayle Hunnicutt BECOMES Charlotte Stant in an exquisite performance that can't be surpassed. Uma Thurman's feeble attempts in the movie version are pathetic in comparison. Cyrill Cussak in the narrator role as Bob Assingham is brilliant. Barry Morse may lack Nick Nolte's sex appeal, but that is a benefit when it comes to to this production. If you are an English or Theater teacher looking to assign excellent film adaptations for analysis and review, you can't o better than this production.
12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Superb adaptation of James' study of co-dependency amongst the idle rich
bbmtwist5 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
THE GOLDEN BOWL - BBC (1972)

Henry James' complex novel of 1904, The Golden Bowl, has been filmed only twice, as a six-part BBC mini-series in 1972, and as a Merchant Ivory film in 2000. Each has its merits, but for me the BBC production is far superior to the film. Primarily, this is because in this production we get massive amounts of James' actual words, in extended dialogue between characters, and as pure prose from the narrator, who here is the supporting character of Bob.

The six parts all time in differently between 40 and 45 minutes each (42, 42, 44, 45, 40, 43) totaling 256 minutes, or 4 hours and 16 minutes. The film version runs 131 minutes, approximately half the running time devoted to the BBC production. As such, the film is devoted primarily to narrative flow, not Jamesian thought and perception.

By the time we are at the one hour mark in the film, we are at the same point where part four of the BBC production ends - one half the film compared to two thirds of the tv series. Much of the leisure of reading the novel lends itself to the BBC production, while the film is concerned with getting the story told.

The BBC cast is impressive. Gayle Hunnicutt is an absolutely gorgeous woman and plays Charlotte with great dignity and sophistication. Daniel Massey as Amerigo is quite likeable and believable and his accent is appropriately Italian. Jill Townsend is also quite beautiful as Maggie and impresses when her formerly vapid characterization turns into a lioness, when the truth of the threat to her marriage becomes known. Barry Morse as Adam is gentleness and kindness personified. Kathleen Byron as the match-making Fanny is appropriately concerned and tactful in trying to ensure that her achievement is not tarnished. Probably best of all is Cyril Cusack, who as Fanny's husband, Bob, shares conversations with her about what may or not be happening in the story, as well as acting as James himself in his role as narrator and confidante to the audience.

The story parallels James next novel, The Wings of the Dove, in many ways. Both novels contain six main characters. In Bowl there are four main characters and two supporting. In Dove there are three main characters and three supporting. In both a couple cannot marry due to financial difficulties. In both the woman schemes to find a way to obtain funds and keep her intended. In both the man is a willing, then later unwilling, dupe, and in both the object of the scheme is a young, innocent woman.

In both works, the scheming woman fails, partly due to the change of heart of her lover as the schemes progress, and partly due to the fact that human behavior is not predictable.

In Bowl the four main characters all possess the same fatal flaw - they behave in ways that are to ensure the happiness of another, not their own. As such, no one really does or says what he/she thinks, only what may be perceived as beneficial to another. In modern psychological terms, this is co-dependency.

This is especially noticeable in the BBC adaptation, where (using James' own dialogue) the characters waltz around what they want to say in ways so elaborate as to say nothing concrete, only "imply" to the trained ear what they really mean. Stellar writing.

Although Dove ends in tragedy, Bowl is saved due to the sudden "education" of Maggie, whose mindless flouncing through life is brought up short when she realizes her marriage is in danger. She must sacrifice her relationship with her father to ensure that her marriage is saved. She does so in a way that keeps all four main characters wrapped in dignity, while manipulating the scenario to her needs. In this way she mirrors Charlotte's attempts at manipulation, but while Charlotte's plans are doomed to failure, Maggie's win out in the end.

For once Maggie acts for herself, not for others, thus breaking the chain of inefficiency that has been binding them all. In this way, she wins independence not only for herself, but for the others as well.

Production values for the BBC production are excellent. As always, the sets and costumes are gorgeous. The videotape source is impeccably bright and crisp. All performances are spot on. This version is the one I recommend. It is available on dvd as part of a Henry James collection, five discs of BBC productions. They are all wonderful and the purchase is well worth the price.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
unique! - singular in its sinister accomplishments
gahnsuksah12 February 2022
If you find reading Henry James tedious for his endlessly spun-out and inconsequential sentences, you need not fear. This production is subtly habit-forming throughout its inveigling four episodes. Especially, as other reviewers have commented, for everything that is not said in the text. Perhaps not too sinister, by contemporary standards, it nevertheless treats infidelity, not simply as an extracurricular activity for the lazy rich, but also as a labyrinth of quiet deceptions and undercurrents running through 19th century propriety, presented in a suave and 'delicate' manner. I watched all the episodes several times, sometimes twice in one evening. You too, perhaps, when you 'get caught' by the disquieting and ominous dialogues wafting from scene to scene.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I keep watching, my father retreats.
mole-1327 January 2000
This is a genial-enough comment, from a lifetime (up till now, anyway) of reading Mr J and being long used to his floating ways with the language. Back when this miniseries was running, my father, who was a good man interested in the world around him but no longer much of a fiction reader--when he was a young fellow, he was earnestly taken by George Eliot--sat down to watch The Golden Bowl and submit to a barrage of Jamesian commentary and sideways talk. After the fourth episode he suddenly stood up, said This is too damned silly! and retired to his study. I knew what he meant; I kept on watching. So it goes.
8 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Bit on the Slow Side but Still Okay
ldeangelis-7570825 April 2023
Henry James is not one of my favorite authors to read, but he's one whose works I enjoy through either movies or miniseries, as is the case with "The Golden Bowl".

While I feel the whole story could have related in 4 episodes instead of 6, I still enjoyed watching it, one of the reasons being Jill Townsend (Maggie), who has a way of acting both with her voice and her eyes, that expresses her emotions without going overboard. Even when angry, she never overdoes it.

I also liked having the narrator (Cyril Cusack) also be a part of the story, and the symbolism of the golden bowl, almost forgotten until near the end, had the perfect subtle impact.

Despite their behavior, you still couldn't help feeling sympathy for Charlotte and Prince Amerigo (Gayle Hunnicutt and Daniel Massey), though you can't help but feel that, had they been free from the start to be together, the rosy picture of romance would probably have faded. And had Maggie and her father (Barry Morse) not been so close, keeping everyone else at a distance (whether aware of it or not), Charlotte might have been more content with the choice she made, and Amerigo may have realized sooner that there was more to Maggie than he thought.

The best part of this story is the way Maggie's character develops from a daddy's girl to a happy bride, then a loving wife and mother as well as a devoted daughter with a best friend for a stepmother, to a mature woman, disillusioned, her romantic blinders fallen, as she views the real scene, but determined to keep as much of the former landscape as possible, in whatever way she can.

Worth watching.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
riveting production
eumenades15 October 2023
One of the most riveting productions I have ever seen on television, The Golden Bowl encapsulates a story of wicked romance and deception amongst Britain's 19th century upper classes with an atmosphere so sinister, I could not but marvel at the actors' ability to create such social realism on the screen. Gayle Hunnicutt's Charlotte is so devious and contemptible in her characterisation of a seductress with such love of intrigue and slippery guile and silent contempt for her associates, one can almost hate her in real life! Upper-classes, playing with life and a marvelous opportunity for the literary dialectical materialist's interpretation in any university seminar group. I will never forget the dimminishing light surrounding Maggie as she sits alone in frozen bewilderment - effected by a gradually dimming studio light - slowly putting together the web of deceit that has surrounded her. Terrific drama! First rate!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

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


Recently Viewed