The Go-Between (2015 TV Movie) User Reviews

Breathtakingly Photographed, Poignant Version of the Hartley Classic

[l_rawjalaurence · 7/10 · 5 October 2015]

Pete Travis's production is visually breath-taking, with Felix Wiedemann's camera creating a prelapsarian world of turn-of-the- century Norfolk full of bright sunshine and vivid colors of green, yellow and orange. Interior scenes are shot close to large windows flooded with light and illuminating the protagonists' faces; set- pieces such as the cricket match contrast the russet wood of the pavilion and the cricket bat with the off-white garb of the bourgeois players. Leo (Jack Hollington) and Ted Burgess (Ben Batt) are photographed in medium close-up in rolling fields, making it seem as if they inhabit the natural world around them. This use of visual imagery emphasizes the apparently unchanging qualities of the late Victorian/ Edwardian world on which, quite simply, the sun never seems to set; class-differences are firmly entrenched and everyone seems outwardly happy with their lives.

The visuals provide a suitable framework for a tale that puts the stability of this world into question as Ted Burgess conducts a clandestine love-affair with bourgeois Marian (Joanna Vanderham), who is at the same time engaged to her social equal Hugh Trimingham (Stephen Campbell Moore). Director Travis makes much of the social gulf between the two lovers: Marian inhabits a world of parties, croquet matches and formal meals, policed by her mother (Lesley Manville), while Ted leads a solitary life on the farm, caring for his horses and bringing in the hay in late summer. When the two milieux collide, after the cricket match has finished, the bourgeois characters are thoroughly uncomfortable. Mrs. Maudsley looks apprehensively round the room at Ted's social compatriots as they quaff their ale and sing songs, while Trimingham puts on an air of false bonhomie, even though it's clear he'd rather be somewhere else.

In such a socially stratified world, it's obvious that Marian and Ted's love-affair is doomed to failure. Yet neither of them appear to understand this; they prefer to write letters to one another, using Leo as their unwitting messenger. What becomes clear from Travis's production is the extent to which the adults' behavior is governed by self-interest; neither Marian nor Ted have any real concern for Leo's feelings as they repeatedly put emotional pressure on him to carry out their wishes.

Looking back on that summer fifty years later, it's hardly surprising that the adult Leo (Jim Broadbent) should view it with a jaundiced eye. It was chiefly due to Marian and Ted's machinations that Leo ended up emotionally stunted, unable to sustain a relationship to any great depth.

The ending, it must be admitted, seems a little rushed, as the adult Leo encounters the aging Marian (Vanessa Redgrave), who encourages him to set aside his resentments and start to love those around him. Shot in a series of shot/reverse shot sequences, we see Leo's stern countenance gradually relaxing as he understands the truth of Marian's words. In terms of what we have previously seen, however, it seems slightly implausible that he should undergo such a rapid change of character.

Nonetheless Travis's production ends satisfactorily with the younger and older Leo shown together in two-shot against a rural backdrop. At last it seems that Leo has come to terms with his past; it is no longer a "foreign country," as Hartley describes it at the beginning of the source-text.

This version of THE GO-BETWEEN tells the tale in a straightforward manner with due recognition of the social class-divisions that inhibit the characters' reactions. Definitely worth watching.

A beautifully shot, and moving production.

[david-69042 · 8/10 · 27 September 2015]

I am, more often than not, left disappointed when my favourite literary classics are adapted for television or the big screen, and while this BBC production of LP Hartley's novel is not perfect, it does better than most.

The drama begins with a crushed, sorrowful looking older Leo (Jim Broadbent) travelling on a train to Norfolk, the scene of his foreign past. He imagines his younger self, (Jack Hollington) who accuses him of being a "Dull Dog." The older Leo then lays the blame for him being this "creature of ashes and cinder" squarely on the shoulders of his younger self. I found it to be a clever, and moving way of beginning the story.

We then travel back fifty years in time to the scorching summer of 1900 and the characters that would haunt Leo into his old age.

Leo spends his holidays at the country manor of his upper-class friend Marcus. (Samuel Joslin) It is here that he meets the beautiful, but manipulative and selfish Marian, (Joanna Vanderham) who he becomes instantly besotted with. He then becomes a postman of sorts, as he delivers love letters between Marian and her bit of rough, the tenant farmer Ted Burgess. (Ben Batt)

Over the course of the summer, Leo feels increasingly uncomfortable and guilty about ferrying these correspondence, which he now knows aren't just "normal letters," back and forth. The engagement of Marian to the landlord, war hero, and thoroughly decent Trimingham (Stephen Campbell Moore) increases Leo's torment even further.

I found it to be well directed, beautifully shot, with picture perfect locations. The performances were excellent throughout, especially from Master Hollington as young Leo. His acting was subtle, natural, intuitive and he had a charismatic presence that you could not take your eyes off of. One to watch out for I would say.

At times it felt a little rushed, especially at the end where Broadbent returns as Leo, Batt as Marian's grandson, and Vanessa Redgrave plays the part of an older Marian. That is just a small complaint though. Overall, I found it to be a very moving adaptation of my favourite LP Hartley novel

Edwardian love triangle

[Prismark10 · 8/10 · 22 September 2015]

'The past is a foreign country: They do things differently there.'

What a great opening line and it belongs to the novel which this is adapted from. It got me immediately hooked.

What also helped was an astonishing performance from actor Jack Hollington who played Leo.

The film starts with Leo as an old man (Jim Broadbent) going back to revisit the summer of 1900 which had a profound effect on his life.

As a 12 year old boy he went to stay with a well to do school friend Marcus and his family, it becomes apparent that Leo is from a more modest background and has to adjust to a society of privilege and wealth.

Leo is struck by the beautiful Marian who is due to be engaged to Viscount Trimingham (Stephen Campbell Moore) and therefore set herself up for life. However he has been disfigured in the Boer War and Marian has been having a passionate affair with tenant farmer Ted Burgess (Ben Batt smoldering like a younger Rufus Sewell for all his worth.)

Leo is used by Marian and Ted as a go-between carrying secret messages between the two, yet he also used to convey messages between Trimingham and Marian.

Leo realises even at his tender age that the affair between lowly Ted and Marian is doomed and also he has been used by Marian. Her kind acts to get new clothes for him had ulterior motives.

It was a fast moving adaptation, very much cut down from all the flab. It kept the class divisions subdued, even Trimingham a war veteran aims to have cordial relations with his tenants in the estate but definitely wants to win the cricket match against his farmers.

Lesley Manville gives an icy performance as Mrs Maudsley, Marion's mother who suspects what she has been up to but hell bent on her marrying Trimingham. Even Trimingham suspects she is not entirely his hence why he would like Ted to join the army.

I have not seen the 1971 film version but I guess seeing Julie Christie and Alan Bates together again would probably had taken my mind back to their earlier pairing in Far from the Madding Crowd which kind of has a few superficial similar plot elements.

There is a coda at the end as the older Leo encounters the older Marion (Vanessa Redgrave) which rounds off the story. Leo however is still haunted by the past.

A chocolate box depiction of the novel: full of richness and sweet but lacking a solid centre

[clivy · 7/10 · 21 September 2015]

When I first heard the BBC was going to show a new version of The Go Between I wanted to turn in and watch it. I read the novel years ago and it made a vivid impression on me. Its always been one of my favourite books, and I thought of it with fondness after I moved to East Anglia.

It was wonderful at first seeing the older Leo with his younger self (in his green suit) on the train. I liked how the filming concentrated on the house and the lush greenery. But I was disappointed. The new Marion is no Julie Christie. Fair enough, no one else is Julie Christie except Miss Christie herself, but the Marion in this re-imagining is fair, very pretty, but lacking any real depth until she becomes angry with Leo for not taking messages to Ted. The new Ted, like Marion, is lovely to look at. I wasn't surprised when Ted was swimming in the nude and working in the fields stripped to the waist. (The BBC has been broadcasting several adaptations of classic novels recently including scenes with topless and wet males, trying to capitalize on the fervor made by Colin Firth swimming as Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice) It was nice to have some eye candy for the ladies and it worked well with the themes of the story. The cricket scene and the following concert were well played too.

It turned out to be a chocolate box depiction of the Go Between, full of richness but full of sweetness mostly on the surface, mostly shallow, and ultimately unsatisfying. I disliked the compartmenting of the story so the viewpoint of the old Leo was shoehorned to the end. I missed some of the key scenes in the novel, such as Leo offering his dry bathing suit to Marion so she can dry her hair with it and Leo polishing Ted's cricket bat. I missed seeing Norwich Cathedral, and Marion meeting up again with Leo at the train section wasn't as meaningful as her ditching him at the Cathedral and telling him to wait for her. While the cricket scenes and concert scenes were effective the new version doesn't give as much indication of the class divide as the original novel or the 1971 film. I liked the hints of a Norfolk accent in Ted's speech: it would have been nice to hear and see more Norfolk in the film. It felt very abridged and heavily cut so it could fit into a 90 minute slot. I much prefer the 1971 film. Harold Pinter did a fine job with the screenplay, and the acting is superb. Only Vanessa Redgrave and Jim Broadbent achieve any pathos in this version. The young actor who plays Leo is sweet looking and finely suggests his inner torment. The viewer however isn't given any notion of Leo's acting and conniving to win popularity in the house. Several times in the novel Leo plays for effect, like asking for a large amount of sugar in his tea because small boys are supposed to like sugar. I groaned at the ending: seeing the Old Leo and the young Leo together in the train traveling to the house was effective, but seeing them together walk towards the house at the end, preparing to speak to Marion's grandson, was corny. Marion's recounting of what happened to the others in the house did sound like a rushed through list, and didn't convey the weight of destruction: how the brand new century so promising in that long ago summer turned out to be devastating for Marion, her family, and the country.

Ah the memories of youth, quite bitter but not sweet.

[mark.waltz · 6/10 · 28 May 2023]

A surprising friendship between a pre-teen boy from lower middle class and an upperclass young woman results in a trauma that emotionally stunts Jack Hollington for years. His aiding of sweet Joanna Vanderham seems like an effort for him to feel accepted outside of his class as he stays with a friend for the summer from the upperclass, and as the emotionally stunted older Jim Broadbent confronts the past by visiting Vanessa Redgrave (Vanderham years later), it's obvious that this meeting is long overdue.

Rather slow moving and humorless, but beautiful physically and romantic emotionally, it's hard to get into, but eventually the points are made even if the viewer begins to struggle to stay involved. I was fascinated by the coldness of the performance of Lesley Manville, absolutely chilly in every way. Ben Blatt is very steamy in his role as a local farmer. Very theatrical and literary, this won't be everyone's cup of tea, and will obviously be compared to the 1971 original film. But like good literature, it builds, and while not a solid structuring when the roof blows off, it's explosive and disturbing.

A classy production brought up to date.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 9/10 · 20 September 2015]

Leo recounts his life, the Summer of 1900 had a huge impact on his life, when as a 12 year old he went to stay with School friend Marcus and his family. Since that Summer Leo has lived in the Shadows of the past. Leo is enchanted by the beautiful Marian, she recognises that Leo is from a humble background, and as they are surrounded by such wealth she takes pity on him and treats him to new clothes. Her motive for doing so though was to sneak off and meet with someone. Whilst out playing Leo heads to the farm owed by Ted Burgess, Leo falls and gets patched up by Ted, Leo offers a favour in return, he is to carry a message back to Marian. Young Leo becomes the go between for the two who are conducting a secret love affair,carrying messages back and forth. Marion's engagement to the Wealthy Viscount Trimingham is announced and the love triangle seems doomed.

A true tale of class and forbidden love, this was a glowing adaptation, it's been a long time since I saw the 70's version, but this was excellent. A definite bright future ahead for young Jack Hollington (Leo) he managed to outshine a totally wonderful cast, he was just incredible, a hugely talented young man. It's brilliant acted by all, but Lesley Manville should get a special mention as the cold Mrs Maudsley.

Favourite scene for me had to be the discussion between Leo and Marian, when as a confused youngster he can't understand why Marian couldn't marry her true love Ted. It was just wonderful.

The scene of Mrs Maudsley bullying Leo into divulging the secret place of assignation between Marian and Ted was tough to watch.

You cannot help watch this and help feel sad for Leo, manipulated by both Marian and Ted, both used him badly, Trimingham treated him very well and knew all along what was going on, never once turning on Leo.

Bravo BBC 9/10

Jack Holllington was superb.

[1bilbo · 10/10 · 21 September 2015]

The acting of Jack in this movie is outstanding - he should be at the top of the credits.

I also found this adaptation to be far superior to the original, much more attention grabbing.

There is a danger of believing that originals are always the best but this is not always the case.

Lesley Manville portrayed the mother superbly and captured the horrible nature of many women of her age and position - people who did absolutely nothing for a living.

10/10

Superfluous

[grahamclarke · 4/10 · 16 January 2016]

One can understand the BBC's desire to remake "Cider with Rosie" and "Lady Chatterley's Lover", and perhaps even "An Inspector Calls", although the last has at least two fine filmed versions, but their decision to remake "The Go-Between" was a misguided one.

Jospeh Losey's 1971 version is one of those rare occasions in which everything seemed to be right - a top notch cast, beautiful cinematography, a terrific Michel Legrand score and a superb Harold Pinter screenplay. L.P. Hartley himself was moved to tears after seeing the film. So then why remake it? How could it possibly fare in comparison?

This television version does not even begin to complete with its predecessor. Adrian Hodge shows little faith in his audience forgoing any subtlety in his dialogue and general characterisation. The cast are a pale and uncharismatic bunch.

Seek out Hartley's novel and Losey's film – they are masterpieces. Skip this one.

A youngster become embroiled in a tale of forbidden love.

[colinevans-20130 · 9/10 · 4 October 2015]

I'm of the generation that remembers the original transmission from 1971, at the time it was a pretty big production. The new (2015) production seemed to come and go without drawing much attention to itself. It was fairly understated, non lavish, but enjoyable enough way to spend 90 minutes. I was pleased to see the names of Jim Broadbent and Vanessa Redgrave appear in the RT, but fans of both will be disappointed by their respective lack of screen time, with each appearing only fleetingly as Leo and Marian in their twilight years. The production hang over the shoulders of young Jack Hollington, and the young man did not disappoint. He captured Leo's complex relationship with Marian particularly well. I'm pleased to see the DVD is available as it's a production worthy of further viewings. Accomplished and enjoyable.

Disappointing

[alex239-545-53158 · 5/10 · 20 September 2015]

This was a major disappointment compared to the novel and original film. Like most modern period dramas, it is style over substance, with stunning photography masking a misguided script and some unconvincing acting.

The earlier 1971 movie was a flawless adaptation, with Harold Pinter's script tending to say less with more, upping the tension with the slow, languid pace reflecting the heat of the summer and limited, meaningful dialog. Here, unnecessary lines are inserted as will, many not even in the novel, such as Leo's embarrassment about his old and ragged summer clothes after Marian accuses him of lying – this is just a cheap way of garnering sympathy for the boy, and not reflective of the times it was set. Such things would have been left unsaid. It is the same through the program; everything needs to be spelt out, rather than leaving it to the actors to subtly convey.

There are poor minor plot additions such as Ted seeming defensive about being poor – certainly not true to the book, and a far cry from Alan Bates and his worldly self confidence. Here he attempts to be brooding and moody, as oppose to charismatic and cheery but with a fiery temper, and it makes him far less likable and far less obvious why Marian would risk everything for him. Mariam herself is only passably acted, with Julie Christie an impossible act to follow. Marian's father being away is another pointless adjustment, and the production misses his steady, world weary presence, especially in the smoking room scene that was so integral to the first film. Trimmingham also loses some of his aristocratic dignity and military bearing, and the writer inexplicably takes away his fantastic line that gives him such honour and pathos: "Nothing is ever a ladies fault, Leo".

Leo himself puts in a fairly lifeless, strangely camp performance, with a certain charm combined with adolescent awkwardness which is very different from the more honest, believable performance in the film. Less attention paid to the central theme of oppressive heat, the film seems to move much quicker and out of sequence. It's also more outwardly emotional, compared to the stoicism of the film and novel, where passions are repressed and below the surface. The vital moments here are filled with shrieks and histrionics. The final meeting is too warm and pleasant – it should have that edge of regret, memory, pain and nostalgia mixed together, the dialog has been watered down, the hint of bitterness discarded.

Unfortunately it suffers greatly by comparison, because taken by itself it is a very solid, beautifully shot production. The filming is breathtaking, with so many lovely touches including the reflection in the water scene and that wonderful final shot of older Leo against the hall and endless lawn. For people who haven't seen the original or read the book this may seem a far better film that the one I have described.

A good try!

[peli01 · 8/10 · 23 September 2015]

I have rated this film as 8 out of ten because if you ignore the original version it is an excellent production with some good performances but for me nothing can match the original 1971 version which I would give 10 out of 10.

It was an almost impossible task to attempt to improve on the original and if you can't do that, why bother? Unfortunately the new film blatantly tries to copy the 1971 version in several places and inexplicably omits key lines and characters that were in the L.P. Hartley novel.

And why was the new film not filmed in Norfolk? Berkshire is an unconvincing substitute. Railway buffs will also have noticed that the station shown was obviously southern, probably the Bluebell Railway, not at all like a Norfolk station.

If I Only Knew About Spooning Upon Turning Thirteen!

[phillip-mcdowell · 9/10 · 23 May 2018]

I have neither read the novel nor seen the first film adaptation, but after viewing the 2015 release of The Go Between I can understand why it was nominated for so many awards. Wonderful cinematography, exact period costumes, even how the outdoors shots were cleared of practically all remnants of modern life, put you there in 1900.

Great acting by all of the cast, especially from Jack Hollington who plays young Leo.

The stiffness and stuffiness of the Edwardian lifestyle for the British upper class is well presented in the film, although by 1900 cracks were beginning to appear in the veneer of this strict social structure of the haves and have-nots. The delineation of how and when the classes meet each other and interact is clearly displayed.

My how times have changed in the 21st century. If the Queen's grandson may marry a mixed race American divorcee imagine what say a daughter of a mere Lord may have over her own life choices.

An empty pageant of over-emphasis

[neazy · 3/10 · 24 September 2015]

The fragile fabric of memory that engages us in the novel is entirely lost in this highly disappointing and ham-fisted adaptation, which mistakes simplification and over-dramatisation for subtle adaptation.

The opening ten minutes glide artistically through the first third of the novel in a strangely muffled and demure fashion which, whilst capturing something of the surreality of Leo's past world, entirely loses the tension and careful character dynamics that the novel develops so fluidly. By the time we come to the sight of Ted's peachy buttocks disappearing into the lake, therefore, we have been handed a rather muddy and crude palette. The basics of the story are there, but we reach them strangely isolated from the charming and sympathetic naivety of Leo's perspective.

We feel entirely too privileged as an audience. This is because, in skipping over the opening exchanges, the film has had to make its narrative rather too obvious. Marian and Ted never attempt to disguise the purpose of their letters, meaning that Leo's eventual discovery of their supposed secret seems empty. Leo's interactions with both, hampered as they are by stale dialogue and half-obscured by a profusion of lens-flares and abstract music, loosen his emotional attachment to the situation, and so we lose our sympathy for his innocence. Consequently, by the time of the cricket match, the action has descended into posturing, empty one-liners, and dirty looks between Hugh and Ted, whilst Joanna Vanderhamm's hilariously half-bleached eyebrows wriggle more and more desperately in an attempt to retrieve some emotional depth.

I didn't reach the end - the damage had already been done.

Beautifully tragic coming-of-age story

[LilysHammer · 8/10 · 28 June 2018]

Turning 13 is never easy, but for Leo it's far more than his own burgeoning puberty that entangles him. His curiosity about the ways of love is confounded by his lack of father, so he turns to a young farmer on the estate where he is summering. His lower social status already makes him a fish out of water at the sprawling English estate, so the eldest daughter's attention and care for him is most welcomed. As the story progresses, his burgeoning feelings for her and curiosity about the unspoken mechanics of "spooning" begin to take a heartbreaking turn. He is caught in the midst of a Romeo and Juliet tale that leaves him feeling torn by his friendship with all the parties involved. Leo is a heartbreaking character, but also relatable. A beautiful movie to watch, definitely recommend.

Well worth watching

[deankurtz-76557 · 9/10 · 1 November 2018]

I liked the story although I was never sure why Leo was spending time with the rich Maudsley's. It was hard to have too much sympathy for the secret lovers because of the way they manipulated Leo into doing their bidding. But all-in-all I enjoyed it

Innocent Used Children

[debejere · 10/10 · 23 March 2019]

Heart wrenching. Heart stopping. Beautiful love story. Hateful mother. Blind love. The abuse of this child broke my heart. Neglect and abuse he endured as he payed in the rain crying. My goodness. Early on in the show, he feel so in love. The first love of a little boy is more real than anything most give credit. I just adored this movie.

Nice enough

[namstonk · 5/10 · 4 January 2021]

The direction, cinematography and acting are all very nice. However it's one for your gran on a wet Sunday, most would say "get on with it" and like me, "What, that's it, seriously?"

Much more moving than the 1971 version...a worthy adaptation

[jennyrock-70509 · 8/10 · 14 December 2021]

I watched this a day after watching the 1971 version with Julie Christie & Alan Bates...I was out to be very objective with no agenda other than my true response...The novel on which the film is based, ranks among my favourites of all time. So I know the story quite intimately. This version was quite moving where the 1971 didn't touch me in any way.... I don't know enough about film-making to identify why this is so technically....but one thing I would say is casting ....especially Leo, the boy for whom future emotional development ceases with the events that take place in this film...re Jack Hollingtons Leo, he is sweet, endearing, innocent & likeable....you can feel his vulnerability & therefore it's realistic for things to impact on him in the shattering way that they do.....in the 1971 version, I don't like or feel for, or connect with, any of the characters...they are all wooden .... And the story telling is way superior in this later film....much more rounded & it's fuller....the key riveting moments seem fleeting in the earlier film....the later film joins all the dots really clearly & effectively....& mostly, impactfully....the viewer can really get the significance of the cricket match, the significance of the concert, why people were surprised & moved by Leo's singing, the tensions between Marion's mother, & her suitor & her secret lover....and the older Leo also, is a character that is loveable & really plausible as an older version of the younger boy..still showing the same sensitivities & tenderness of heart....and I think it's only in this version of the film, that it becomes clear why the summer of 1900 which was shaping up to be the glorious beginning of a glorious new century, could have such a long-lasting damaging impact on Leo...not an easy story to adapt to screen, bc so much of its drama hinges on the inner subjective world of a boy at the beginning of burgeoning adolescence as he finds himself thrust into a social class beyond his station and this as it's seen through the eyes of his older self looking back for the first time, and for the first time seeing the huge fallout....this later film did a worthy job....as someone already commented, it was much more appropriate to have a Lord Trimington that wasn't attractive....confusing in the earlier film to have the opposite....perhaps the only weakness was Marion.....at least the younger Marion....she didn't, for me, manage the balance of being odious in her exploiting of Leo while remaining likeable....but Ted Burgess actor did manage this well....and don't believe anyone who dismisses the book as drivel....the book excels in explaining how knottedness & desiccation can enter people's emotional life and is exquisitely written (from someone who is very fussy)....if you're cut off from that subjective world of feeling or in denial of it, it would explain why you could dismiss such an outstanding book.

Search out this TV drama on DVD or legal download - but skip the book.

[Mobithailand · 9/10 · 10 April 2016]

The TV adaption of The Go-Between is excellent. Dare I say it? Yes, why not – it was far more enjoyable than the book.

Yet the drama was faithful to the book in nearly every respect. It didn't need to change much because, at its heart, The Go-Between is a good story with some fascinating characters. The story relates the experiences of a 12-year old boy from somewhat straightened family circumstances who spends his summer holidays with a very wealthy school chum at his grand home in the Norfolk countryside. He is 'used' as a messenger between a wealthy young lady, (the school chum's elder sister), and her working-class, tenant farmer lover. This leads to some predictable consequences – given that the sister is betrothed to the local Lord, who has ugly facial scars from his time in the Boer War.

The film spares us the unlikely contemplations of the boy messenger, but allows us to watch him as he slowly comes to realise that the business between the two is not really 'business' business, but 'love affair' business.

It is particularly poignant because our little hero has developed a boyhood crush on his chum's sister and on top of this he has become a bit of a snob. He thoroughly disapproves of the clash of classes and he wants her to marry the ugly Lord.

The film is brilliantly acted by one and all. I have not come across any of the actors before, save the wonderful Jim Broadbent who plays a cameo role as the boy some fifty years later.

The camera work of the grand house, the characters in their Victorian finery and especially the Norfolk countryside is mesmerising. Somehow, the cinematography brings to life a long- forgotten era of England during the years before the First World War; when walking and horse carts were still the main form of transport, and a time when everyone still kowtowed to the Lord of the Manor.

So much was to change so soon – as the 'boy' recalls when he returns to the area for the first time, some 50 years later. Search for this TV drama on DVD or legal download and enjoy it. But skip the book.

A birder's comment

[tjvgjtscpn · 8/10 · 4 September 2021]

A wonderful well cast and moving theme. Leo (Jack Hollington) held centre stage with almost cameo performances from Jim Broadbent and Vanessa Redgrave. Set in 1900, just one minor error on the soundtrack - a Collared Dove cooing in the background on a quiet summer's day - this species of dove didn't arrive in the UK from the Middle East via Europe until the 1960s!

Beautiful and Beautiful!

[alifahimizadeh-43647 · 10/10 · 21 February 2021]

Beautiful and Beautiful! Wow! Sad, from cast to music and photography! All 10/10