I thought you meant Beeg (NWS).
Will move on.
Middle England had better get ready to choke on its cocoa this weekend, because BBC Radio 3 is poised to unleash a "contemporary adaptation" of Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights. The word "contemporary" gives the game away, and listeners can expect an earful of expletives in playwright Jonathan Holloway's reworking of the 1847 …
I thought you meant Beeg (NWS).
Will move on.
The only way to "capture the shock" of the original is to add loads of swearing?
Wow I'm really glad that this is what the BBC are spending my money on.
I'd wait till you see it before getting all huffy about it. Anyway, it was pretty strong stuff at the time, and still is, and I think Heathcliff probably would be a sweary bastard. He's practically feral.
I don't care what they do - you can't ruin it, it's too great - as long as Cliff Richard isn't involved this time. Cliff Richard. Kerr-ist.
. . for the remixed Kate Bush song.
"Heathcliff, it's me, Kathy - where the fuck have you been!"
... it was all crack-whores and felony mouth rape?
So that's what Daily Mail readers do in the day...
But then it's been said that the pictures on radio are better than on TV...
 I'll leave the research to others.
There's money in making old books modern.
I particularly like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Didn't Not The Nine O'Clock News do this in the skinhead hamlet in one of their Calendars? ( http://sub-zero.mit.edu/bakunin/hamlet.html ) - script by Richard Curtis
Which, meanwhile, was brilliant - the only version I've managed to enjoy. Wish the entire movie were available as such...
aren't we overdue for another pointless Pride & Prejudice production?
They only need to make a period piece once, as long as they do a good job.
They don't need to "update" it for so-called "modern audiences" either, unless they think that by not having a version in a Peckham patois we are somehow missing out, innit?
"They only need to make a period piece once, as long as they do a good job."
Really? So you'd be happy with blurry, flickery black and white versions of things, and never trying to improve on a production, or try anything new?
Second God coefficient, grant me strength that I may better facepalm.
"Contemporary" for Radio 3 means 1957, doesn't it?
I think your fingers slipped; for radio 3 1857 is contemporary.
Ya'll are missing out on some fantastic music.
In this contemporary re-telling of Bronte's tragic tale, it is revealed that Heathcliff is really a cyborg sent back in time to kill Mr Lockwood. He is stopped by covert CIA ninja, Catherine Earnshaw, in an epic battle that takes place on the streets of modern day New York. The world is saved by the Americans who manage to find and crack a critical encryption device of alien origin by introducing a virus into the computer system of the alien mothership.
Dude you forgot the kerching phrase du jour - 3D!
Shurley must be starring Megan Fox and some skinny foetus from a Twilight emo vampire film.
A modern remake would make no sense - half the plot hangs on characters dying of diseases that can be cured with a two week course of antibiotics now. Are they going to have Catherine die of Super-AIDS?
"Are they going to have Catherine die of Super-AIDS?"
Nope, she'll go into hospital to be treated with that two-week course of antibiotics, but die of MRSA...
Amazing how many people rush to slag off the beeb for wasting our money on costume dramas.
Read the article - it's on the radio, so will consist of three people standing in a room, reading a script.
I'd hate to see my licence fee blown on photocopying etc etc....
When the fuck did we move to the US?
So Hamlet is a medieval king of Viking Denmark and we are meant to think he swanned around in tights soliloquy-ising?
I'm thinking that an historically accurate Hamlet would be a bit more Brian Blessed than Brian Sewell.
Pretty much every other play on Radio 3 is prefixed by a "This play contains strong language" warning.
Anyone who is surprised by this obviously doesn't listen to the drama on Radio 3 where the programmes that DON'T have a warning are the exceptions - you're probably expecting it to be as cozy as Radio 4.
Go on flame me, I don't care. Not entertainment, not literary, just a slice of life from a bygone era. Might be nearly interesting as a look at life for a certain section of the middle classes in Victorian England if it weren't so fucking dull.
"...the author crossed out some terms in the original manuscript on the grounds they were 'too strong'"
That would the famous 'hung like a donkey' paragraph.
Anything at all will be an improvement on the original; one of the worst "classic" books I have ever had the misfortune to read.
... I 'ad ter read Shakepeare's "Coriolanus" for my English Lit. "O" Level. (Oh aye, we 'ad it tough in those days! None of yer nancy-boy gee see ess ees!)
Now, Coriolanus, by 'eck, *that* were the very *definition* of tedium. I'd sooner eat me own todger than read that overrated shite again!
[INSERT REMAINDER OF "FOUR YORKSHIREMEN SKETCH" PASTICHE HERE.]
I rather liked the Monty Python short sketch of Wuthering Heights in semaphore.
I get so bored with these writers who spend all their time "adapting" other people's work and then expecting the same attention and plaudits as would be given to an original author.
If he wants to capture the shock of the original he should see if he can write something that is as original and shocking and as good as the original.
The single best dramatic adaptation of a novel ever broadcast was the ITV production of Brideshead Revisited. The reason that it was so good was that it took the whole damn book almost word for word and transferred it to the screen. The scriptwriters didn't drop any bits of the book that were at all important to the plot, they didn't make any noticable changes to the plot and they didn't comit that most heinous of adaptation crimes - intoducing major new plots. It's a very slim novel, but even that added up to about 8 hours of television. It never ceases to amaze me how somebody can adapt thicker novels to 90 minutes of broadcast and still manage to introduce their own little plots and extra characters. I often wonder how much of this is based on a desire to convince commissioning editors that they are great writers. People, if you want to impress a commissioning editor with your talent have you ever tried submitting a brilliant original script? If the answer to this is yes and your productions still don't get commissioned then you maybe ought to at least consider the fact that you're not as good as you think you are.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017