I have read approximately 75% of Ruth Rendell/Barbara Vine's large body of work, but not the novel upon which this TV production was based. I understand it was published in the 1960s, 30 years before this 1995 TV adaptation. Perhaps that explains some of the dated attitudes expressed by characters in the show?
For example, a female character who looks to be around age 40 marries a man who looks to be in his early 30s--and Wikipedia entries for the respective actors confirm this-- yet multiple characters say things to or about the woman such as "You married a man SO MUCH younger than you!" and "...at HER age!" It gets distracting. Next time, cast a significantly older or older-looking actress.
This protagonist is a wealthy woman played by Eleanor David, and it is this character and the actress who keeps the whole show from sinking. It's not that she's so fantastic an actress (she's "okay" here) and it's not that she's given great material (she's not). But, she is successfully sympathetic in a cast filled with bad actors and unlikeable louts, plus she's also a compelling beauty with a mane of red hair and arrestingly high cheekbones. She convincingly plays an upper-middle class character, gently reared and used to falling back on the comfort of her chequebook, always at the ready.
Her slightly younger husband is also handsome, with a corresponding dark mane of hair and a Hollywood Brat Pack air about him. The actor Mark Frankel sadly died at age 34 in a motorcycle accident, shortly after filming this TV show. Unfortunately, his acting here is markedly worse than his co-star's, and unlike Ms. David, he doesn't at all convince me. The character is supposed to be a well-educated teacher of the middle classes who is something of an intellectual elitist and aspiring Serious Writer (making pompous literary allusions and snide remarks about characters with local/country accents and lesser vocabularies). But the actor has a muddled and not especially educated accent himself, and gives off a showy Hollywood heartthrob air incompatible with the character. RIP, however.
The mystery plot is poorly presented, and a lot of that is down to the disjointed way the director/writer first establish the characters and their relationships to one another. It's not at all clear, for example, why exactly the posh redhead Belle who lives in the local Big House is best friends with the downmarket country florist, Nesta. Even one or two lines explaining WHERE the two met to begin with--not just the quick lines saying they go on double dates with eligible men and that Nesta's sassiness emboldens Belle-- would help the audience later accept why Belle so faithfully searches for the missing Nesta and pays Nesta's bills!
The actress playing Nesta isn't particularly good at conveying the wild mood swings required of the character, and that's a liability.
I just don't buy a lot of the acting and poorly-developed relationships here, and that tanks the mystery plot which is the whole point for this TV series' existence.
It's not the worst way to spend a Sunday afternoon but after seeing this episode's immediate predecessor, the equally stilted and unconvincing "Master of the Moor," I am left puzzled as to why, of all the Ruth Rendell Mysteries series, US Netflix/DVD service begins with these unsuccessful mid-90s ones instead of the earlier Inspector Wexford episodes.
4 out of 4 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
