TV: The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby (1982)

Whatever one might think when viewing this version of Charles Dickens' novel, you can't not be awed by the sheer scale and technical complexity of the thing. It is, in essence, a filmed version of the RSC's eight-and-a-half-hour stage adaptation of the novel, originally performed over two evenings of four hours each! There are 39 cast members who between them play over 100 roles. The staging, including any number of scene transitions and set pieces, as to be seen to be believed. It's incredibly impressive.

The adaptation itself is sadly lacking at times, however. There's an over-reliance on having cast members read chunks of the novel out for narration -- at times it's useful, but at others is so utterly pointless that it seems to be present merely to keep up a flow of narration so we don't forget it's there. Some segments could do with a good trim and modified pacing, especially during the first act of the first half (around episodes 1 to 3 of this miniseries version), where the story struggles to get going and, I must admit, I almost gave up on the whole thing several times. It is worth sticking with, though, even if just to appreciate the feat of its staging.

The performances are, unsurprisingly, quite theatrical, which can be problematic at first but is less so once you become accustomed to them. This is not always the case, however: David Threlfall's Smike is as convincing as anything you might see in a realistically-played film or TV programme; so much so that I wasn't convinced it was a performance (as opposed to a genuinely disabled person) until I finally recognised who the actor was a fair way in. He steals the show. He's also one of only two actors to play just one role, the other being Roger Rees as Nicholas. Rees was 38 when this was shot but convinces pretty well as an 18-year-old, though I wasn't always so sure of his performance. He's not a poor actor as such, but I didn't always warm to Nicholas.

The primary villain of the piece (probably, anyway -- there are several) is Nicholas' uncle, Ralph Nickleby, played by John Woodvine as a calmly uncaring man, which makes a pleasant change from the usual scheming evil villainy. His semi-redemption at the end is well played, but an unfortunate piece of plotting -- in typical Dickens style, it's based on a coincidence too far and also lacks a decent comeuppance. The dirty, snivelly evil is left for Alun Armstrong as Mr Squeers, Ralph Nickleby's sometime co-conspirator, a delightfully evil performance that would surely be labelled Dickensian were it not in a Dickens. Then there's Bob Peck (yes, Muldoon from Jurassic Park) as both the comical and good-hearted Yorkshireman John Browdie and the thoroughly dastardly Sir Mulberry Hawk -- as the former he becomes one of Nickleby's greatest friends, as the latter one of his greatest enemies. Sir Mulberry gets more suitable justice served than Ralph Nickleby, which is most satisfying.

Finally, no overview of the performances would be complete without mention of Edward Petherbridge as Newman Noggs, Nicholas' greatest friend of all. At first I found him a tad irritating, with his over-the-top hand gestures and odd way of speaking, but his many snide remarks (so very Dickens) provide a great deal of the play's best humour, and his unusual manner ultimately seems very befitting -- when Petherbridge turns up briefly as another character, it serves to highlight just how effectively affected his portrayal of Noggs is. His truly noble character, existing to serve those he believes are worth it and never after anything for himself, makes him all the more likable. If anyone comes close to equalling Threlfall then it's Petherbridge, albeit for different reasons.

Looking back on the whole nine-hour affair (which, thankfully, I watched over many nights instead of two!), it becomes easier to be impressed with the play. While viewing it can occasionally feel like a bit of a slog, especially when the plot chooses to go round in circles or drag things out interminably. But it's an achievement, that's for sure, full of memorable performances and memorable staging. Be glad it was filmed -- I can't imagine anyone being daring (or foolish) enough to attempt this again... and I'm not sure many would wish to sit through it in such large chunks anyway!

TV: Cranford (2007)

Cranford was at the forefront of a spate of new costume drama on the BBC around New Year (which has so far also included a new (still running) Sense and Sensibility, and will progress with Lark Rise to Candleford this weekend). It'll be a tough one to beat, though. The critical reaction to this mini-series, starring Judi Dench and a host of other familiar faces, has been overwhelming positive; and, in a rare bit of luck possibly not seen since Doctor Who returned, it was overwhelmingly right.

It's hard to know where to begin with what's so great about Cranford, or where to end once started. Every performance is flawless, every character and scene beautifully written. Every character is so rich, you see; all torn between their desires and their duties in the way that only characters in period drama can be. And just when you begin to suspect that, maybe, one of them might be a tad one-note, something comes up to add to them. Even the supporting characters and the 'bad guys' have depth and complexity, so that, while you still may not like them, you can at least understand them.

There is comedy worthy of bigger laughs than most sitcoms manage these days, and absolutely heart-wrenching tragedy -- so skillfully juxtaposed that you can't help but be caught off-guard by one or the other, to impressive effect. In this respect it is ruthless, not shying away from killing off major characters or ruining their lives; yet it is never done lightly, no jaded fear that anyone could die so why even care (unlike in, say, 24 (an unusual comparison, I know)). It's rare to find a show that can pull of good comedy or good drama, so one that can do both (and at the drop of a hat) is an absolute Godsend.

I suppose Cranford won't -- or can't -- be for everyone: there are some who will always reject period drama; some who refuse to delight in the old-fashioned manners, duties and romances. It's their loss, here more than ever. I'm not a big fan of period drama myself -- don't get me wrong there: I happily watch them, I always enjoy them, but I mean that they're not the sort of thing I watch again, unlike thrillers, action, sci-fi, etc.

But I love Cranford. You'd be hard-pressed to beat it, in any genre.